MacBook Pro: Choose 5400 rpm or 7200 rpm hard drive?

p8guitar · Post by **p8guitar** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:46 pm

Any suggestions if one should opt for the (160GB) 5400 or the (100GB) 7200
rpm internal hard drive?
The 7200rpm hard drive should be faster (=better for playing back audio), and costs 90€ less... but it may generate more noise.
If I'll also use an additional external hard drive containing sample libraries and movies and pictures (for visuals), the 5400rpm hard drive should be sufficient, what do you think?

DJ VAKIS · Post by **DJ VAKIS** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:59 pm

I would go for 7200.

Yeh · Post by **Yeh** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:01 pm

Hi,

Don't know how many audio tracks you want to use. But I use sometimes more than 20 and have never noticed any difference between my 7200 Desktop HD or 5400 Notebook HD. (I use PC's but that shouldn't be different).

Regardz,

Jos from Ravenglass
www.ravenglass.nl

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:13 pm

The hard drive speed issue was more of a factor when laptops were using ATA-100 drives. Now everything is SATA, which is much faster.

kechambe · Post by **kechambe** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:16 pm

I've always gone with 7200 but when I got my new 15 I did the 5400/160. The 160 uses Perpendicular storage which stacks the bits. Perpendicular is apparently more reliable then the traditional approach. But for sure it is faster because the data is stored more densely. That means each rotation reads more bits. Does that mean the 5400 is faster then the 7200? I don't know. But with 60% more space, better reliability and an assumption that slower RPM means less battery usage, I went with the 160.

Pitch Black · Post by **Pitch Black** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:30 pm

I've gone for the 160Gb 5400rpm option.

On my current Powerbook, 5400 gives me all the access I need for live gigs, and for serious project work, I have external 7200 rpm drives anyway. (too many of the damn things in fact - gotta keep swapping 'em round the enclosures)

If I was going to work on video, heaviliy, all the time I might have made a different choice.

p8guitar · Post by **p8guitar** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:02 am

kechambe wrote:... The 160 uses Perpendicular storage which stacks the bits. Perpendicular is apparently more reliable then the traditional approach. But for sure it is faster because the data is stored more densely. That means each rotation reads more bits. Does that mean the 5400 is faster then the 7200? I don't know. But with 60% more space, better reliability and an assumption that slower RPM means less battery usage, I went with the 160.

Seems as if the 160GB 5400rpm is the better solution, because it is technically more advanced. Otherwise it would be strange that the 7200rpm drive is cheaper.

djmyke · Post by **djmyke** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:51 am

dont be scared wit the 5200rpm=) u get more storage...

if u want.. u can hav a 7200 firewire hd

Left Eye Dominant · Post by **Left Eye Dominant** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:32 am

The 5400 rpm drive will generate less noise, heat and use less battery power (we are talking about tiny difFerences here but every little bit helps) . In the past I have avoided storing/streaming audio files or sets on the actual drive that is physically the boot drive (even if it is partitioned) so I always used an external FW 7200 rpm drive for that kind of stuff.

The 5400 rpm drive in the new Macbook Pro's is SATA not IDE so should be fast enough for general purposes anyway.

djmyke · Post by **djmyke** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:08 am

Left Eye Dominant wrote:The 5400 rpm drive will generate less noise, heat and use less battery power (we are talking about tiny difFerences here but every little bit helps) . In the past I have avoided storing/streaming audio files or sets on the actual drive that is physically the boot drive (even if it is partitioned) so I always used an external FW 7200 rpm drive for that kind of stuff.

The 5400 rpm drive in the new Macbook Pro's is SATA not IDE so should be fast enough for general purposes anyway.

i got peeps who tested 4200 5400 and 7200 internal sata drives

both 4200 n 5200 performd the same......

compared to the 7200.... diference of 1-2 secs only....

Tarekith · Post by **Tarekith** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:47 pm

1-2 seconds of what?

FWIW, 5400 should be more than fast enough for you.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:07 pm

Tarekith wrote:1-2 seconds of what?

I think that would be "nano"-seconds of disk access time, perhaps?

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:11 pm

if you choose a seagate drive, both the new 5400rpm and the 7200rpm drives have the Perpendicular storage system... and come in either 120 / 140 or 160gb...

i went for the 160gb 7200rpm Perpendicular storage seagate.
not shure about the excact advantage / speed bump between those... because of the all 'new technology' still waiting for mine... though, should arrive about midweek

if you use an external 7200rpm drive for audio, which i do as well, then you should be fine with a 5200rpm drive i guess, depending on your average trackcount... it used to be only a real 'big' difference in trackcount. [25+]

dodgyedgy · Post by **dodgyedgy** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:20 pm

Machinate wrote:
Tarekith wrote:1-2 seconds of what?
I think that would be "nano"-seconds of disk access time, perhaps?

That'll be MS not nano... nano is for memory.. ms for HD times

and its seek time not data return time..