A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Storage (alternative)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Which drive would you get?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 26th 19, 08:45 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,296
Default Which drive would you get?

One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM
64MB cache.
  #2  
Old January 26th 19, 09:37 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Neill Massello[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Which drive would you get?

Yousuf Khan wrote:

One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM
64MB cache.


Where and how will it be used? For most applications, the modest speed
advantage of modern 7200rpm drives doesn't outweigh the higher cost,
vibration, noise, and heat.

  #4  
Old January 26th 19, 11:20 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,296
Default Which drive would you get?

On 1/26/2019 3:37 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM
64MB cache.


Where and how will it be used? For most applications, the modest speed
advantage of modern 7200rpm drives doesn't outweigh the higher cost,
vibration, noise, and heat.


The question is is the 256MB cache a bigger advantage than the 7200RPM
rotation?
  #5  
Old January 27th 19, 03:10 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Neill Massello[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Which drive would you get?

Yousuf Khan wrote:

The question is is the 256MB cache a bigger advantage than the 7200RPM
rotation?


I don't know, and it would probably depend on whether you were doing
random or sequential reads or writes. The acid test would be . . . a
test. See if Storage Review has any for the models in question.

https://www.storagereview.com

  #6  
Old January 27th 19, 08:42 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,453
Default Which drive would you get?

Yousuf Khan wrote:

One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM

^^^^^^^^___ 5400 RPM
64MB cache.


Depends on how you use the drive. If you repeatedly access the same
file or same data then a larger cache would be faster (as long as the
data size doesn't excessively exceed the cache size). The OS has its
own buffers. Applications will also have their own buffers. If you
typically open files, close them, and don't revisit them then a shorter
seek (faster RPM) might be faster. We don't know how you will be using
the drive(s), if it will be just a data disk or an OS disk, etc.

The above is just a generic assumption. You don't mention brands and
models of the drives you intend to get. What might look like a slower
drive might perform better than what might look like a faster drive.
Specifications are handy but they are not absolute. Look around for
drive benchmarks that log the results for the two drives in which you
are interested. Benchmarks may indicate which drive is better but they
only compare drives based on those benchmarks, not real use.

You also don't mean the capacities of the two drives. If capacity isn't
an issue, you might want to go to an SSD for the best performance.

What's the price difference between the two unidentified disks? If one
drive is 0.17% faster than the other, would you notice its performance
difference (since the objective of your computer is not to run
benchmarks but use it) and would it be worth the price difference?
  #7  
Old January 27th 19, 05:23 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Which drive would you get?

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 14:45:00 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM
64MB cache.


A 5900 rpm drive will run significantly cooler than a 7200. I run both
speeds in the same brand/model of USB external box. The drives are all
4TB each. The 7200 drives run at 35-39 C while the 5900 runs at 25-30
C. Thus, the 5400 drive should have a longer effective life based on
cooler drives tend to run longer due to lower temperature stress on
(electronic) parts.
  #10  
Old February 15th 19, 04:48 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Which drive would you get?

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:04:45 +0100, Filip454
wrote:

A 5900 rpm drive will run significantly cooler than a 7200. I run both
speeds in the same brand/model of USB external box. The drives are all
4TB each. The 7200 drives run at 35-39 C while the 5900 runs at 25-30
C. Thus, the 5400 drive should have a longer effective life based on
cooler drives tend to run longer due to lower temperature stress on
(electronic) parts.


This is the biggest myth, which is also constantly repeated on the internet.

Lower temperature =/= running longer


It is no myth for electronic components. Running hotter = shorter
component life.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SSD boot drive vs. hard drive with large cache for boot drive? speed difference? Joe[_23_] Dell Computers 6 October 15th 14 01:54 PM
Cloning OS drive to newer, larger drive without hidden Dell Restore Partition xsrossiter Dell Computers 12 August 13th 07 02:24 PM
Cloning OS drive to newer, larger drive without hidden Dell Restore Partition xsrossiter Storage (alternative) 12 August 13th 07 02:24 PM
Hard drive runs at random, but no light and no record of drive/file access Carl. General 1 February 6th 05 07:35 PM
Windows REinstallation failed because of drive failure. Drive's diagnostic is fine! Mathieu Leplatre Storage (alternative) 5 August 19th 04 01:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.