Just curious, because the 200GB hard drive is only 4200 rpm does that mean it will be noticeably slower in real term use compared to the 160GB 5400 rpm hard drive ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hard drive speeds
- Thread starter MacDonaldsd
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you have enough RAM, it shouldn't make a difference when switching programs. Launching programs (especially large ones, like Illustrator/Photoshop) is a different story.
I got a 200GB drive in my MBP....hoping I'm not going to regret it.
Also programs that make extensive use of scratch files like Final Cut and Photoshop, and programs like databases that save all entries to the drive, will be affected.
Yes, if you have enough RAM that all of your programs, OS and data can fit in the physical RAM, then switching programs should not be affected.
I say get the 160 Gb 5400, plus a nice fast 250 Gb external Firewire.
Yes, the 200GB drive is noticeably slower. I have no first-hand experience, but this is what I have concluded from viewing benchmarks on the drive. It's not a slow drive, it's just slower. If you need the extra 40GB, go for it. However, if not, the 160GB is the sweet spot in terms of both speed and capacity.
After comparing XBench scores on Disk tests between my MBP (200 GB, 4200 rpm) and bcavanau's (120 GB, 5400 rpm), it seems that my disk performs about 85% to 90% as well as his on various tasks, without a whole lot of variation.
My MBP: http://www.eggdropper.com/picdrop/mbp3gb-xbench.txt
bcavanau's MBP: http://lartren.com/mac/xbench.txt
Haven't seen any XBench results from a 160GB, 5400 rpm MBP, which should score higher considering the greater bit density...
My MBP: http://www.eggdropper.com/picdrop/mbp3gb-xbench.txt
bcavanau's MBP: http://lartren.com/mac/xbench.txt
Haven't seen any XBench results from a 160GB, 5400 rpm MBP, which should score higher considering the greater bit density...