Why I will be choosing a 4200rpm hard drive (probably)

[fairnymph]

Hi

[*]I can't afford (OK, don't want) to wail until July to get the 7200RPM 160Gb drive.
[*]The performance of any hard drive decreases at it nears capacity. If I got 160Gb, I'd be running it to near-full capacity for a greater duration of my machine's lifetime than if I got the 200Gb.

If you wailed until July, I think you'd have a very sore throat...

I actually think the best argument for not getting the 7200GB is that second point...if you fill up your laptop, it's gonna be slow no matter what, might as well have more space!

I did a bunch of googling on this topic, and I discovered from reading many individual reviews on a variety of sites, that many people (on macs and pcs) reported a significant performance boost with the 7200rpm drives. Ie this being people going from both 4200 and 5400rpms to 7200rpm and noticing an overall improvement that they considered very worth it. That sort of before/after info sold me on 7200rpm.

 

[samh004]

If you wailed until July, I think you'd have a very sore throat...

I actually think the best argument for not getting the 7200GB is that second point...

While we're pointing out spelling errors, where did you get the option from to get a 7200GB drive ? Would that be 160rpm too ?

 

[fairnymph]

While we're pointing out spelling errors, where did you get the option from to get a 7200GB drive ? Would that be 160rpm too ?

ROFL!

Clearly it's past my bedtime.

 

[daisu]

Are you getting AppleCare? Will they install a different HD at the Apple Store? Or perhaps an authorized tech house could do it for you for a fee if you're worried about it.

I agree about having as much space as possible especially if your machine is being used as a primary computer. I'm running out of space on my desktop and it has... well, a lot of room. I think, though, that I'm going to get the base 160 and save the 120$ for a new hard drive a little down the line.

Indeed.

Thanks for all your replies.

Basically this is boiling down to whether I feel confident to take a screwdriver to my MBP.

Hmmm.

I am normally pretty good at dismantling and re-assembling things, but if I screw up I won't be able to afford to replace it and I'll be stuck with my iBook G4 for the next two years (this is how long it has taken me to save up for the MBP).

Maybe I'll feel better about DIY in 12 months time - in which case I just need to pick a hard drive I can live with for the next year or so.

Cheers
SL

 

[aliquis-]

Good point. Lacie 1TB 7200RPM RAID is just £9 more than the 200Gb LittleBigDisk (RRP). But the LBD is smaller does not need an external power supply - which is nice. Something to think about, cheers.

Hard choice, not.

I would consider using NAS instead thought, but that is since I will mostly use my disks at home anyway. Easier if you get/have more than one machine and switches OS and whatever. Also with 1gbit ethernet speed should be sufficient.. Something from Synology or so.

 

[superleccy]

is there ANY data that disputes the barefeats data that shows the 7200rpm hard drives slow down when it is filled with data? (and that the 4200rpm hard drives speed up when it is filled with data)

No-one, not even barefeats, is claiming that the 4200/200Gb drive actually speeds up when it is filled with data. It just gets comparatively less slow as it approaches data volumes would fill up the faster-spinning-but-smaller hard drives.

Note also that the 7200 hard drive in the test is 100Gb, not the 160Gb option available in the new SR MBPs. By the rules discussed in this thread and the barefeats article, I should think that 7200/160Gb would always out-perform 4200/200Gb regardless of how much data was stored - assuming you're prepared to wait/wail until July.

But otherwise, I cannot find any data or user-experience that actually contradicts the barefeats article.

if you don't do the upgrade yourself, then it would be an authorized apple service provider. I posed the question in another thread, and i was given the rate of $80 per hour for their services.

Whilst I don't entirely trust myself to do it, I'd trust a third party even less. Illogical I know, but this is my baby we're talking about here!
SL

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I ordered as well the 4200 rpm and 250 gig drive w/ my 17". I just value capacity more then speed. I just hate to delete files and do all the housekeeping on my harddrive. I have three external LaCie drives w/ FW800 and 7200 rpm. Total 1,5 TB external. I am doing video editing.

 

[heatasmallhouse]

Hey guys, something to keep on your radar. Apple doesn't do upgrades, only replacements for stock drives. Also, if you get the drive replaced by a qualified service technician as an upgrade rather than repair I was told that Applecare will not cover the drive, just the remainder of the computer.

I was told this by a Genius at the Buffalo, NY retail store. If anyone has better info please correct me

 

[superleccy]

EDIT: Post deleted because I didn't read heatasmallhouse's post properly - sorry.

 

[daisu]

I ordered as well the 4200 rpm and 250 gig drive w/ my 17". I just value capacity more then speed. I just hate to delete files and do all the housekeeping on my harddrive. I have three external LaCie drives w/ FW800 and 7200 rpm. Total 1,5 TB external. I am doing video editing.

Will you be using an external disk as well for video editing? I'm stuck now considering the 250gb hard drive vs the 160gb one (I've ruled out the 160gb 7200... the speed bump is just not worth 120$ to me)

Also, aren't there 300gb hard drives in the pipeline for laptops?

 

[CanadaRAM]

I also ordered the 200Gb 4200 rpm drive. I am planning on partitioning it into a system and a data partition. That way, the smaller system partition gets the outer (faster) rim of the disk, and the seek times are reduced -- at least according to this article. It's the concept of partial stroking -- a smaller partition means the drive head doesn't have to travel as far during the seek operation. So will you be able to tell the difference between a 50Gb @ 4200 and a 160Gb @ 5600? Also factor in the increased density of the 200Gb drive. I suspect that for most users, it comes out to be a wash.

I don't agree with this - All it guarantees is a long stroke between the swap file and the data file. And since typical operation of the machine is rapidly alternating between data and swap, I think this would increase times rather than decrease.

The only partitioning that would make sense to me is to block out the end of the disk for archival data and software, forcing both swap and data onto the smaller partition on the outer tracks, then be religious about putting your seldom used applications and oldest data onto the slow partition, keeping only your current applications and current data in the first.

Applecare will not cover the (third party) drive, just the remainder of the computer.

Um yeah. I'd be giving up one year Apple warranty for a 5 year Seagate warranty. Tough choice.

Also, aren't there 300gb hard drives in the pipeline for laptops?

EVERYthing is in the pipeline. When, how much, and how viable are the variables.


I dunno about the Little Big Disk. RAID 0 means WAY higher chance of data loss. 2.5" platters means WAY slower than 3.5" platters even at 7200 RPM -- and I don't think RAID performance gain is gonna be enough to overcome that. The only thing I see this has going for it is bus power. And I Never like powering a drive -- let alone 2 of 'em -- from bus power. I believe it is inherently unstable.

 

[superleccy]

I dunno about the Little Big Disk. RAID 0 means WAY higher chance of data loss. 2.5" platters means WAY slower than 3.5" platters even at 7200 RPM -- and I don't think RAID performance gain is gonna be enough to overcome that. The only thing I see this has going for it is bus power. And I Never like powering a drive -- let alone 2 of 'em -- from bus power. I believe it is inherently unstable.

Indeed. My existing one-disk Lacie dies once a year, so I can expect an n-disk RAID 0 Lacie to die n times a year.

I'd only use the LBD as a scratch disk (I wouldn't use it for long term data storage or backup) as its speed (according to bearfeats) and portability appeals. I share your bus power fears too - but the LBD does come with a power brick too.

SL

 

[technogeek]

I ordered as well the 4200 rpm and 250 gig drive w/ my 17". I just value capacity more then speed. I just hate to delete files and do all the housekeeping on my harddrive. I have three external LaCie drives w/ FW800 and 7200 rpm. Total 1,5 TB external. I am doing video editing.

The <A HREF="http://barefeats.com/mbcd7.html">BareFeats article</A> leaves me with no other conclusion than to go with the 250GB 4200 rpm drive in the 17" MBP SR. At 74G/160G = 0.4625 full, the 5400 rpm drives are slower than the 4200 rpm drive at 74G/200G = .37 full.

At 148G/160G = .925 full, the 5400 rpm drive has only 85% the speed of the 4200 rpm drive at .74 full.

I already have 160GB if I load my iTunes and iPhoto library back from my LaCie Rugged drive.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Will you be using an external disk as well for video editing? I'm stuck now considering the 250gb hard drive vs the 160gb one (I've ruled out the 160gb 7200... the speed bump is just not worth 120$ to me)

I will use ONLY the external drive for storing the video data. If you use Final Cut Pro - there is a very good tutorial from Shane Ross how to setup your system. Costs a little but worth the hassle you go around.

Cheers
LaForge

 

[Fairly]

For every computer I've ever owned since 1995, a creaking over-stuffed hard drive has been the main trigger for me buying a new machine

And what do you do with the data on the old machine when you get a new one?

 

[superleccy]

And what do you do with the data on the old machine when you get a new one?

Ummm... put it on the new one. All of it, given that by the time I get the new one I'll already have delteded and archived as much as possible.

SL

 

[whateverandever]

...leaves me with no other conclusion than to go with the 250GB 4200 rpm drive in the 17" MBP SR. At 74G/160G = 0.4625 full, the 5400 rpm drives are slower than the 4200 rpm drive at 74G/200G = .37 full.

At 148G/160G = .925 full, the 5400 rpm drive has only 85% the speed of the 4200 rpm drive at .74 full.

I already have 160GB if I load my iTunes and iPhoto library back from my LaCie Rugged drive.

If you're really a "technogeek" you need to take some more statistics and math classes, buddy.

You can't simply apply a linear formula like that, especially when you're not even working with linear math First off, a 50% full drive is not 50% slower than an empty drive. That's absolute nonsense.

You'd be better off doing speed tests at 100% full and empty and then you'd get a better read (not accurate, but at least not complete nonsense) at 37%.

There are so many factors at play in doing these tests. For example, if you're doing a read test, data being read from different areas of the hard drive at full is going to get different throughput.


In the end, faster hard drives are better performers. Period. You can't really argue with higher RPM drives in the end. 4200rpm will always feel extremely sluggish.

And if you need 250GB. Get the Western Digital 250GB 5400rpm drive at Newegg. It's a good performer.

If you want best performance, get the 160GB 7200rpm Seagate drive.

4200rpm = slowest, always (in latest drive technology anyway, comparing it to old drives isn't fair).

 

[technogeek]

If you're really a "technogeek" you need to take some more statistics and math classes, buddy.

You can't simply apply a linear formula like that, especially when you're not even working with linear math First off, a 50% full drive is not 50% slower than an empty drive. That's absolute nonsense.

Dude, I really am a technogeek. As to taking more classes, everyone should take more statistics and math classes. You are hallucinating formulas, where I gave none – I just restated the test results from BareFeats using percentages of space and speed instead of absolute values. I made no attempt to interpolate a formula, though that would be interesting.

The real question is exactly what DiskTester (http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd7.html) is showing with its 74GB and 148GB mark tests. It is from November, and I don't know if these are the actual HDDs being used in the current MBPs. But these tests do show an important principle: If your data storage will nearly fill the smaller but faster drive, but leave a lot of space on the slower but bigger drive, the latter may have higher performance.

 

[whateverandever]

Dude, I really am a technogeek. As to taking more classes, everyone should take more statistics and math classes. You are hallucinating formulas, where I gave none – I just restated the test results from BareFeats using percentages of space and speed instead of absolute values. I made no attempt to interpolate a formula, though that would be interesting.

The real question is exactly what DiskTester (http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd7.html) is showing with its 74GB and 148GB mark tests. It is from November, and I don't know if these are the actual HDDs being used in the current MBPs. But these tests do show an important principle: If your data storage will nearly fill the smaller but faster drive, but leave a lot of space on the slower but bigger drive, the latter may have higher performance.

You made two incorrect assumptions based on their results:

1.) The conclusions from their tests is accurate -- it's not.
2.) Their tests carry over in a linear formula with all drives at any given storage level or any drive

They, of course, assumed the same. Honestly, I question the validity of most of their reports at BareFeats. They don't seem to have the best background knowledge.

They're basing the whole idea of 4200 large drives being "faster" simply on sustained sequentially read. This rarely EVER happens. Even with defragmenting going on, you're not getting sequential reads on most files. If you look at the random reads/writes the 4200 rpm drive is an absolute failure.

We all should really look to a better website... Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, etc. Bare Feats is a useful, but hardly authoritative, resource for new Mac tech.

In the end... RANDOM READS AND WRITES = smoother experience. Sequential data throughput = nice, but not as useful.

 

[technogeek]

You made two incorrect assumptions based on their results:

1.) The conclusions from their tests is accurate -- it's not.
2.) Their tests carry over in a linear formula with all drives at any given storage level or any drive
...
They're basing the whole idea of 4200 large drives being "faster" simply on sustained sequentially read. This rarely EVER happens. Even with defragmenting going on, you're not getting sequential reads on most files. If you look at the random reads/writes the 4200 rpm drive is an absolute failure.
...
In the end... RANDOM READS AND WRITES = smoother experience. Sequential data throughput = nice, but not as useful.

79-84% of the random write speed for an empty disk would not qualify as "absolute failure" in my book. And 93% of the random read speed is hardly "absolute failure", comparing the Tosh200 4k with the Sea160 5k. The real anomaly is that the Sea160 5k is only 81% the random read speed of the Hit160 5k.

You must be correct in inferring that the DiskTester tests are all sequential sustained read/write. But you keep putting assumptions in my mouth by saying I assume a linear relationship. Nothing I wrote implies that. In fact, I've done the curve fitting, and the approximate relationship between x=% full and y=% maximum speed, when combining all the data, is (as fractions)
y=1.00119 + 0.0415519 x - 0.601401 x^2.
Below is a graph.
Under this approximation, the break-even point is 100GB stored, at which point the fastest 5400 rpm 160GB drive starts to get slower than the 4200 rpm 250GB drive, using the sequential read/write data and the nonlinear formula.

We don't have any data to address what happens with random read/writes. However, on what first principles would we expect the random read/write speed to change at a different rate from the sequential read/write speed as the disk fills? One can even conceive that the 4200 rpm could slow down less rapidly than the 5400 or 7200 rpm disks as it fills: as a disk fills, more of the time in random r/w is consumed with moving the head to different tracks. But head speed of a 4200 rpm drive need not be slower than the head speed on a 7200 rpm drive.

 

[superleccy]

Phew!

After all that, I chickened out and went for the 15" 2.4GHz MBP with the 5400rpm 160Gb hard drive. My intention is to upgrade the hard drive to something (hopefully) bigger and faster when the technology catches up (and after my warranty has expired). For now I've still got about 65Gb of free space - which should last me 6 months at least.

I still don't know weather or not I'd have noticed the speed drop by going for the 4200rpm 200Gb drive. But the thought that I might have noticed was enough to make me play it safe.

I just hope I don't knacker it when I eventually take a screwdriver to it!

It's a beautiful machine though.

SL

 

[mooncaine]

I think you made a good choice with the faster drive.

I'm doing a great deal of audio editing this summer, and all those huge files are on an external FW drive I got from OWC. My office likes their drives, and they've been reliable for us, unlike LaCie, which we haven't purchased in several years now.

Because most of us in the office do video editing, we tend to buy drives with 8MB buffers and 7200rpm spin rates, and I like to get them with USB2, as well, just in case. Over FW400 we routinely capture DV tapes right to the external drives. I haven't used the USB2 connections in years, though, so I might skip that next time round. When I want an external drive, I just ask one of our videographer what he likes right now, and buy that one. I do a mix of everything here, from video editing to Flash animation to simple 3D projects, so I benefit from the fact that the drives handle large files *quickly* via FireWire even though my workload is not chiefly about moving the huge files -- there's still a lot of it.

 

[reflex]

4200rpm will always feel extremely sluggish.

I went for the 4200rpm drive (half a year ago) as I needed as much space as I could get and the 4200rpm drive in my previous laptop never felt slow. So I figured the new one wouldn't feel slow either, and it doesn't.

Maybe the 5400rpm and 7200rpm drives would feel faster, but who cares when it's fast enough already and you need more space

 

[whateverandever]

I went for the 4200rpm drive (half a year ago) as I needed as much space as I could get and the 4200rpm drive in my previous laptop never felt slow. So I figured the new one wouldn't feel slow either, and it doesn't.

Maybe the 5400rpm and 7200rpm drives would feel faster, but who cares when it's fast enough already and you need more space

Well, considering you can get a larger 250GB 5400rpm (Western Digital Passport external drive @ Best Buy) hard drive for $200... you get more space, faster access, and a cheaper price (than most 200GB 4200rpm drives).