will a 7200rpm drive make a difference over a 5400rpm one?

[swapjim]

I want to go for a 2TB drive and I'm a Western Digital fanboy (better personal experiences than Seagate).

WD offers 2TB in Blue and Black. The 2TB Blue is 5400rpm and the Black is 7200rpm. They have the same amount of cache (64MB) and they're both Sata III. The Black has a +35% in the price and a 5-year warranty, as opposed to 2-year for the Blue.

In all the previous desktop HDDs I've gotten, I was adamant about RPM. It had to be at least 7200. But I haven't bought a drive in a long time and I'm wondering: does RPM still matter? Will I see a difference in speed?

I'm referring to speed when transferring data from and to an external storage device (like a Sata optical drive or a USB 3 external HDD) and from/to one directory to another on the drive itself -- e.g. copy or move c:\music to c:\files\music or another partition, like d:\files\music.

I plan to use this as my primary and sole drive for a while. An SSD will come later -- yes, I know that SSDs make things lighting fast; I'll have to wait till 2016 to feel that speed.

If the higher RPM do make a difference then I'll have to weigh the facts and maybe get a 1TB drive. The 1TB Blue spints at 7200rpm. It's bad for the long term (storage is always useful) but my total data footprint is around 500GB, with plans to trim it down.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I wouldn't run an OS drive on any HDD that wasn't at least 7200 RPM. For data storage though, a secondary drive could easily work at 5400/5900 RPM.

The 5400 WD Blue drives are just simply re-labeled "Green" drives.

 

[master_shake_]

seagate figured out that in a year you would save a whopping 2 dimes on electricity buying a 5400/5900 rpm drive.

buy a 7200 rpm toshiba.

 

[Deders]

Get the black for your main drive. They are excellent. In comparison the blue/greens are best left for data/documents/downloads.

 

[swapjim]

Hmmm... I was swayed a bit by reviews on YouTube (between Blue and Black) but those were for the 1TB versions.

A 1TB 7200 Blue drive is just as good as a (either 1TB or 2TB) 7200 Black drive, yes?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

If you're sequential-r/w-bottlenecked, a 7200 rpm drive will be a noticeable improvement over a 5400 rpm drive with the same other specs (platter density, etc.)

But in that case, I would be tempted to stop screwing around and get an SSD instead.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Another recommendation for 7200 RPM here. But really, is even a cheap Sandisk 120GB SSD for the OS drive out of the question? They're not even $50 on Amazon at this point.

 

[Captain_WD]

~snip~

Hey there swapjim

Here're the spec sheets for both the WD Blue and the WD Black. You can compare the transfer speeds, noise levels, power consumption and other things there for the 2TB models as well as for the others:
WD Blue: http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=D800v1
WD Black: http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=MRbKwr
It really depends on waht you are going to use the drive for. For everyday computing and simple usage both drive should suffice. WD Black drives have additional features that handle heavier and more extensive workloads better, can suffer a greater deal of vibrations and heat and are designed to perform better during multitasking and heavier and more demanding workloads.
Also here's some info on the WD Green to WD Blue transition: http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=770#Tab8
RPM does make a difference but it shouldn't be considered the main factor when choosing the type of HDD.
What will you be doing with the drive (besides using it as a primary drive)? Any specific applications or workloads in mind?

Feel free to ask if you have other questions

Captain_WD.

 

[greenhawk]

A 1TB 7200 Blue drive is just as good as a (either 1TB or 2TB) 7200 Black drive, yes?

No. If it was, WD would not be selling the blacks.

 

[ArisVer]

Do yourself a favor (or a Xmas present) and get an SSD for the primary OS disk. Also get the Blue for the extra stuff.

In case you only want to go for a single disk solution, get the Black as it will be way better than the Blue. It is not only the rotational speed that is better; it has dual chips for better multitasking, suitable for an OS disk.

 

[Spungo]

I wouldn't run an OS drive on any HDD that wasn't at least 7200 RPM.

For sure. I had Windows 7 installed on a 1TB WD Green, and it was painful. Booting the computer would take several minutes. My last computer at work was using a 500GB WD Blue, and it too was incredibly slow.

In modern times, installing the OS on anything other than a solid state drive is unacceptable. On my work computer right now, the Windows directory is 45GB in size, and it has over 150,000 files. I think it's more shocking when it doesn't take 5 minutes to boot.

 

[KingFatty]

Are the differences in performance somehow objectively quantified in the specifications?

I would imaging you can compare specs for both drives to get some idea of performance differences, but there are also more things that are harder to nail down, like the chips, or the platter size (if the slower RPM platter is more dense than the higher RPM, that could equalize things a bit).

The different warranty may be enough to justify the higher expense, but maybe it balances out in your favor to get the cheaper drive to use with an SSD, and just keep a good backup plan expecting the drive to eventually fail.

It's a lot nicer when you use an SSD for the OS and day-to-day operational apps/stuff, and the HD for just media storage, because you can easily backup the media and don't even care if that hard drive fails.

 

[swapjim]

Another recommendation for 7200 RPM here. But really, is even a cheap Sandisk 120GB SSD for the OS drive out of the question? They're not even $50 on Amazon at this point.

Frankly? Because I'm totally insecure and want to research something to death before I go ahead and buy it. And I have already procrastinated building this machine enough. So I said "screw this! I'll build something I can work on now, and I'll put an SSD later". Same I'll probably do with a VGA.

Are SSDs so good that I can simply buy "blindfolded" one from a major brand, like Sandisk or Kingston, and be done with it? No intensive research required? If yes, then my best bet is probably to go get the 2TB WD Blue and an 120GB SSD.

What will you be doing with the drive (besides using it as a primary drive)? Any specific applications or workloads in mind?

I haven't checked the links with the specs yet.

Basically you're asking me what I'll be doing with the drive. In brief: video editing, RAW image processing with Lightroom, a bit of Photoshop, the occational VM in VirtualBox, and some gaming. In detail, it's here.

No. If it was, WD would not be selling the blacks.

I don't always trust companies to tell the truth about their products. Also, this video influenced me. But: a) he talks about 1TB drives, and b) maybe he didn't put the appropriate challenge on the Black drive to see it shine.

 

[Deders]

Are SSDs so good that I can simply buy "blindfolded" one from a major brand, like Sandisk or Kingston, and be done with it? No intensive research required? If yes, then my best bet is probably to go get the 2TB WD Blue and an 120GB SSD.

Best to do the research, and see if people have had significant problems with that drive that hasn't been resolved with a firmware update.

 

[MrTeal]

Basically you're asking me what I'll be doing with the drive. In brief: video editing, RAW image processing with Lightroom, a bit of Photoshop, the occational VM in VirtualBox, and some gaming. In detail, it's here.

If you're looking at a $1200 Skylake build, it's almost unconscionable to run the OS straight from a mechanical drive. I'd build a case out of duct tape and put that $50 to an SSD before I even considered using a spinning disk.

 

[swapjim]

If you're looking at a $1200 Skylake build, it's almost unconscionable to run the OS straight from a mechanical drive. I'd build a case out of duct tape and put that $50 to an SSD before I even considered using a spinning disk.

HAHAHAHA! Ok, I got your point.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I would get a small ssd for the OS and a WD black for programs and data unless you can swing a second ssd for that. When I can afford it I plan to replace all of my desktop spinners with ssd's. I've already done it in my laptop and will never go back to a super slow laptop hard drive.

 

[Captain_WD]

Basically you're asking me what I'll be doing with the drive. In brief: video editing, RAW image processing with Lightroom, a bit of Photoshop, the occational VM in VirtualBox, and some gaming.

Well for these types of usage I would say that your storage might limit your performance on some cases so I'd definitely try to get the faster option. SSD would be the ultimate choice for this, but this really depends on the budget that you have.
On the topic, for this a 7,200rpm drive should make a noticeable difference and I would try to get one over a 5,400rpm. drive. WD black should be the better choice since it has an integrated dual-core CPU that manages caching and multitasking better and should give you better performance during the heavier workloads.

Captain_WD.

 

[therealnickdanger]

If you're looking at a $1200 Skylake build, it's almost unconscionable to run the OS straight from a mechanical drive. I'd build a case out of duct tape and put that $50 to an SSD before I even considered using a spinning disk.

+1

I'd do the same with even a $500 build.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Oh yes.

I build PCs for a living, and even in the $400 grannyboxes we build we always go SSD for the primary drive. Grandma's never going to fill 128GB, of course. For boxen with larger storage needs we add spinners, but ONLY as secondary drives.

I've put together at least 50 builds using the cheap Sandisk SSDs and they run like a dream. The Samsungs are somewhat quicker but not worth the extra solely for the small speed boost. So count this as an endorsement for that Sandisk from a lady who knows; you won't be disappointed

 

[RaistlinZ]

Ditto to what everyone else has said.

If you're willing to spend $35.00 more for the Black because you want extra performance, why not just spend $50.00 and get a small SSD?

 

[Puffnstuff]

I'm hoping to catch a 1tb ssd on sale after tomorrow to put my programs on and retire that old wd black sata 2 drive.

 

[krumme]

120gb cheap ssd and cheap 5400 low noise low temp hd.
Dont hurt yourself installing an os and most used programs on anything but ssd.
Man !
You will thank us later
The sequential speed of 5400 blue/red whatever is plenty fine but random 4k read write is so 2009.

 

[krumme]

Just got a 850 evo1tb ssd for one of the kids. You know the kind of gaming user for whom netcode is everything.
But noway is he going hd ever. Better less gfx setting.
Save elewhere but the ssd.

 

[jhansman]

Are SSDs so good that I can simply buy "blindfolded" one from a major brand, like Sandisk or Kingston, and be done with it? No intensive research required? If yes, then my best bet is probably to go get the 2TB WD Blue and an 120GB SSD.

This question has probably created more traffic on this forum than any other; everyone seems to have an opinion on the subject. Me, I've stuck with Samsung drives from the start, except for one Crucial I got a great deal on, with no regrets. You can research the hell out of this subject and go blind reading benchmarks and the internals of each drive, but yeah, almost any SSD boot drive will outperform any rotational media. Samsung, Intel, and the other "major" makers can be relied upon to give you what you want. Just keep in mind that just about all the memory and storage manufacturers now have SSD offerings; the one you pick is worth researching.