Hard drive RPM?
Okay, how much of a performance gain are we talking between a 7200rpm and a 5400 rpm ata100 hard drive. I play Half-life and UT as the main things that really tax my system at all. Is a 7200rpm really gonna be a major contributor to this stuff like video editing or what?.
Okay, how much of a performance gain are we talking between a 7200rpm and a 5400 rpm ata100 hard drive. I play Half-life and UT as the main things that really tax my system at all. Is a 7200rpm really gonna be a major contributor to this stuff like video editing or what?
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
A HD is not a motorbike!
Speed of a HD is dependant on many factors, rpm beeing only one of them. For example HD:s come with various amounts of cache, 512k to 2MB on standard IDE drives. This can affect performance a lot. The number you want to look at judging HD:s is the MB/sec average transfer rate, but how that translates on your PC with your apps is a different story.
In most tests, the fastest HD:s are the 7200RPM ones, but I've seen a number of tests where *some* of the 5400 drives being faster than *some* of the 7200 ones. It's anyhow clear that more Rpm could be faster, everything else beeing equal.
No, there is not going to be a huge difference between 5400 and 7200rpm, but propably a bigger one than between ATA66 and ATA100, which many say is only a theoretical one.
That said, if you are buying a drive because you want more space, I'd still recommend to buy an 7200 rpm ATA 100, the price is not really that much higher (than 5400/ATA66).
If you again want a faster system and are looking at the HD being the bottleneck you've got two options; RAID (smaller gain) or SCSI (big bucks). Or both, by all means.
H.
Speed of a HD is dependant on many factors, rpm beeing only one of them. For example HD:s come with various amounts of cache, 512k to 2MB on standard IDE drives. This can affect performance a lot. The number you want to look at judging HD:s is the MB/sec average transfer rate, but how that translates on your PC with your apps is a different story.
In most tests, the fastest HD:s are the 7200RPM ones, but I've seen a number of tests where *some* of the 5400 drives being faster than *some* of the 7200 ones. It's anyhow clear that more Rpm could be faster, everything else beeing equal.
No, there is not going to be a huge difference between 5400 and 7200rpm, but propably a bigger one than between ATA66 and ATA100, which many say is only a theoretical one.
That said, if you are buying a drive because you want more space, I'd still recommend to buy an 7200 rpm ATA 100, the price is not really that much higher (than 5400/ATA66).
If you again want a faster system and are looking at the HD being the bottleneck you've got two options; RAID (smaller gain) or SCSI (big bucks). Or both, by all means.
H.
It appears that hard drive rpm isnt as big of a contributing factor as I first thought.
I really wasnt sure how much it affected overall performance--which its nothing needed, unless hdd speed is crucial, and then thats what scsi is for.
I really wasnt sure how much it affected overall performance--which its nothing needed, unless hdd speed is crucial, and then thats what scsi is for.
there are 2 different things working here. transfer speeds and access time. they are very different. rpm's usually = better access time but the transfer rate is bottlenecked by the interface controller.
ata/100 does burst transfer rate for buffer to host at 100mb/s (mode 5 ultra ata)
utlra 2 scsi does the same at 80.
there are 3 different transfers working here. platters to buffer, buffer to host, host to processor/memory. the total thruput from platter to processor is the real key here.
all in all in straight speed the ultra/100 is faster than a uw2 scsi, the neet thing about scsi is the bidirectional multi channel configuration. basically a scsi system can do a bunch more stuff at the same time with little to no performance decrease.
for instance playing with my system i can burn a cd (cd-rom to cdrw or hd to cdrw) while doing hd benchmarks. without creating the dreaded coaster, and with a very small performance hit.
u can kinda simulate the same thing with a "raid" setup for dma equipment.
ata/100 does burst transfer rate for buffer to host at 100mb/s (mode 5 ultra ata)
utlra 2 scsi does the same at 80.
there are 3 different transfers working here. platters to buffer, buffer to host, host to processor/memory. the total thruput from platter to processor is the real key here.
all in all in straight speed the ultra/100 is faster than a uw2 scsi, the neet thing about scsi is the bidirectional multi channel configuration. basically a scsi system can do a bunch more stuff at the same time with little to no performance decrease.
for instance playing with my system i can burn a cd (cd-rom to cdrw or hd to cdrw) while doing hd benchmarks. without creating the dreaded coaster, and with a very small performance hit.
u can kinda simulate the same thing with a "raid" setup for dma equipment.
