250gb/5,400 rpm VS. 200gb/7,200 rpm

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
wilxon
Posts: 1256
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:24 am
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Post by wilxon » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:32 pm

SubFunk wrote:
wilxon wrote:
SubFunk wrote: it does, a friend of mine, funk d'void is using a black MB since a year now... more then every weekend across the world under very different circumstances... it did not let him down once.

Timur said HOT stage


:lol:
only thing i know, is... when lars plays it gets hoter then hot :D :lol: :D
I know - he is quite good isnt he. :)

SubFunk
Posts: 7853
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:41 pm
Location: A Big Toilet Called Berlin
Contact:

Post by SubFunk » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:35 pm

wilxon wrote:my opinion on the MB vs MBP argument is that you get what you pay for.


MB - lower CPU, lower Ram, Lower battery power, lower HD space, low on features = LOW ON PRICE

MBP - High CPU power, high RAM, LOnger lasting battery, Large HD, Extra features (backlit keyboard, metal casing, firewire 800, etc) = HIGH PRICE


So, get the most expensive one you can afford.
yes and no... to me a comp is a 'use up item' if you are using it really hard for work ALL the time like a working horse... considereing the ultra fast speed comps develope and always something better is around the corner... you can also argue, get it.
use it.
it will suffer from hard usage the one or other way...
get a new one quicker...
be up to date

both options have there right~!!!
*** Image GAFM ***

mohler
Posts: 705
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by mohler » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:02 pm

forge wrote:I have a 120GB and it's permanently got between 1-3GB spare - most of it's actually my Ableton Library and my music folder

but I do feel like the difference I'm noticing is down to HD speed - and I think I could easily live with 200GB and just use an EXt for backup
I know that feeling.

I only have my MacBook Pro a couple of weeks and I'm like that already. I upgraded the HD in my powerbook to 160GB and it still has plenty of room the problem came when I wanted to move to 120Gb, Ouch.

Personally I'm favor the larger hard drive. Unless you are streaming tons of long files like 24 bit recordings all the time then it's probably not going to be a big issue but then I have a FW800 Lacie for that which works fine.
rolymiller.com
MacPro 8Core 2.8GHz, MacBookPro 2.2+2.4GHz, Macbook 2.0GHz 2GB, Metric Halo ULN/2, UltraLite, Ensemble, Axiom 49, Logic Studio, Live 6,

Timur
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:55 am

Post by Timur » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:48 pm

mohler wrote:Personally I'm favor the larger hard drive. Unless you are streaming tons of long files like 24 bit recordings all the time then it's probably not going to be a big issue but then I have a FW800 Lacie for that which works fine.
I would change that to: Unless you are streaming tons of short files...

Throughput raises with faster RPM, but it also raises with higher DATA DENSITY. So a bigger drive can have more throughput at lower RPM than a smaller driver at higher RPM. Seek times on the other hand will usually be lower/faster on the higher RPM drive, eventhough the higher data density will make that better as well (less head-movement because the same amount of data is less spread over the platter).

wilxon
Posts: 1256
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:24 am
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Post by wilxon » Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:52 pm

Timur wrote:
mohler wrote:Personally I'm favor the larger hard drive. Unless you are streaming tons of long files like 24 bit recordings all the time then it's probably not going to be a big issue but then I have a FW800 Lacie for that which works fine.
I would change that to: Unless you are streaming tons of short files...

Throughput raises with faster RPM, but it also raises with higher DATA DENSITY. So a bigger drive can have more throughput at lower RPM than a smaller driver at higher RPM. Seek times on the other hand will usually be lower/faster on the higher RPM drive, eventhough the higher data density will make that better as well (less head-movement because the same amount of data is less spread over the platter).
and there fore you should go with more space. :lol: :lol:

Anubis
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 1:06 pm
Location: Miami
Contact:

Post by Anubis » Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:06 am

The best notebook HDD available. 3rd gen. 7200 rpm. Less heat and power consumption than 5400. 16 MB buffer and built-in data encryption(optional).
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... CatId=2682
9.0.4 Suite-Samsung Chronos 7 laptop(17")-12GB RAM-Samsung 840 series SSD(250GB)-iPad2-Maschine-TouchAble-SaffirePro24-Saffire6USB-Komplete Audio 6-Axiom25-PCR300-Nocturn-LaunchPad-QuNeo-QuNexus
miTunes

Timur
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:55 am

Post by Timur » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:13 pm

I have to say that I am impressed by the new Hitachi. Question is wether Apple builds those into their MBPs or rather the Seagate?

Here is a review that shows how the Hitachi outperforms the 250gb Western-Digital. The Hitachi uses 100gb per Platter (2 platters for 200gb) while the WD uses 125gb per platter (2 platter for 250gb).

http://www.storagereview.com/HTS722020K9A00.sr

Random Access Times in this review don't matter that much, because they were testing the access across the whole drive (the WD would do better if it only had to cover the same 200gb the Hitachi has to). But as one can see the maximum sequencial data transfer rate of the Hitachi is also higher, thus streaming of large files and small files will be better with the Hitachi.

The Hitachi will draw slightly more power when active (3.0w vs 2.7w) but less when idle (0.69w vs 0.96w). It needs less startup power (4.4w vs 4.9w). I expect heat dissipation to be on par, since both use 2 platters and both use about the same wattage.

wo1
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:33 pm

Re: 250gb/5,400 rpm VS. 200gb/7,200 rpm

Post by wo1 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:51 am

Hello everybody.

I have a couple of questions regarding Live performance and drive speed.

For now I have Macbook Pro (2GB RAM, 5400RPM HDD) with Live 8.2.1, Kontakt 4.1.3 and NI Berlin Grand Piano sample library. Live running with 24 tracks with arrangements streaming from my disk. I also playing midi keyboard with NI Berlin Grand and quite frequently I have audio dropouts and crackle. CPU load in Live shows only 30-40%. I assume it's HDD problem.

So question is: Do I need to upgrade my HDD to 7200 RPM ? Is this solve my problem ?

Thanks in advance.

fishmonkey
Posts: 4232
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:50 am

Re: 250gb/5,400 rpm VS. 200gb/7,200 rpm

Post by fishmonkey » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:32 am

nice necrobump.

is the drive overload indicator lighting up?

what capacity is your current hard drive?

how many of the 24 tracks are MIDI instruments, and how many are audio?

audio dropouts and crackle might also be caused by your audio interface buffer size being too low. what interface and settings are your using?

wo1
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:33 pm

Re: 250gb/5,400 rpm VS. 200gb/7,200 rpm

Post by wo1 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:51 am

my current setup is:

rme fireface 400 with latest drivers installed
my hdd is 250gb
live projects have around 20-30 tracks with medium clips like arrangements, some pads, fx, melodies and etc. so they didn't all play at the same time.

hdd indicator didn't lighten up. but in time when piano starts playing it produces big cpu spike. and everytime when i'm playing piano, live cpu usage increases by 10-15% and even higher if there're many notes.

live projects that didn't have kontakt with berlin piano plays fine without crackles and audio dropouts.

fishmonkey
Posts: 4232
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:50 am

Re: 250gb/5,400 rpm VS. 200gb/7,200 rpm

Post by fishmonkey » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:58 am

so is the drive overload indicator lighting up?

also, more RAM would help, as it would enable more of the samples to be kept in RAM. fire up the Activity Monitor to check your RAM usage. if you are short on RAM, any hard drive is going to have trouble keeping up if you are using a lot of big samples, especially if there is a lot of polyphony going on. 2GB isn't much.

are you using Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard?

wilxon
Posts: 1256
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:24 am
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: 250gb/5,400 rpm VS. 200gb/7,200 rpm

Post by wilxon » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:21 am

fishmonkey wrote:nice necrobump.

lol very nice :D

wo1
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:33 pm

Re: 250gb/5,400 rpm VS. 200gb/7,200 rpm

Post by wo1 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:31 am

drive overload indicator isn't lighting up!
but Ableton produces very big CPU spike when i play too many notes on piano

i'm using Snow Leopard
wilxon wrote:
fishmonkey wrote:nice necrobump.
lol very nice :D
do i need to create another thread, despite similar thread exists on this forum ?

wilxon
Posts: 1256
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:24 am
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: 250gb/5,400 rpm VS. 200gb/7,200 rpm

Post by wilxon » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:37 am

wo1 wrote:
do i need to create another thread, despite similar thread exists on this forum ?

not at all, ive not been on this forum for 3 years or so and suddenly got emails about threads lol

Carry on, more than relevant :wink:

fishmonkey
Posts: 4232
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:50 am

Re: 250gb/5,400 rpm VS. 200gb/7,200 rpm

Post by fishmonkey » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:38 am

anyway, did you check your RAM usage? and what audio buffer size are you using?

and what CPU is in your MBP.

i'm trying to help, but you could help by actually answering the questions i'm asking.

Post Reply