5400RPM or 7200RPM HD

[CGamer]

Looking at purchasing the NP2096 and someone going to school in September, am going to be tight on cash. Is it worth the upgrade to 200gb 7200RPM harddrive, or should I get the 250gb 5400RPM harddrive?

Will either effect battery life much? Also would I notice a difference between the 2.26GHz CPU and the 2.40GHz CPU? $55 should be possible, but is it worth it, better or lower battery life, would this laptop and those upgrades last me at least 2 years(Also planning on upgrading the resolution to WSXGA)?

Thanks for any replys.

-Chris

[jesung]

It depends on how much gaming you're going to do but personally, I'm going for the 160 GB 5400 rpm drive because I have an external. Even without, I'd stick with 5400 rpm since it uses up less battery power.

I don't think 0.14 GHz will be noticeable, and I don't think it's worth it. Unless you have a game that specifically asks for 2.4 GHz as the minimum requirement, I'd stick with 2.26.

This is just a personal opinion though :)

[CGamer]

It depends on how much gaming you're going to do but personally, I'm going for the 160 GB 5400 rpm drive because I have an external. Even without, I'd stick with 5400 rpm since it uses up less battery power.

I don't think 0.14 GHz will be noticeable, and I don't think it's worth it. Unless you have a game that specifically asks for 2.4 GHz as the minimum requirement, I'd stick with 2.26.

This is just a personal opinion though :)

I have a 250gb external HD but it has a power cord I have to plug into an electrical socket, so it isn't meant for on the go use. I'd be playing games like SC2, D3 (when its out), bf2, bioshock, maybe crysis and a bunch of steam games. I just don't want to get something and then regret it.

[Anewbus]

Looking at purchasing the NP2096 and someone going to school in September, am going to be tight on cash. Is it worth the upgrade to 200gb 7200RPM harddrive, or should I get the 250gb 5400RPM harddrive?

Will either effect battery life much? Also would I notice a difference between the 2.26GHz CPU and the 2.40GHz CPU? $55 should be possible, but is it worth it, better or lower battery life, would this laptop and those upgrades last me at least 2 years(Also planning on upgrading the resolution to WSXGA)?

Thanks for any replys.

-Chris

As Jesung said, the drain on the battery is greater with a 7200rpm drive and it is significant enough. Not to mention it will also run hotter. I would go with the 250gb 5400rpm. If its within your budget I would opt for the 320GB 5400rpm HD, unless you really don't need it.

As to the CPU - I agree with Jesung - stay with the 2.26GHz. You will never notice a difference between the 2.26 and 2.40 GHz. It is not worth the extra money. It might be different if you where jumping from 2.26 to 2.53 or 2.80, but even then its questionable if you would ever notice anything. (Unless you had software that specifically called for a particular GHz CPU).

[CGamer]

Thanks for the reply, I think I will go with the 320GHz harddrive and stick with the default CPU, you have both been a lot of help with my decision.

[Anewbus]

Thanks for the reply, I think I will go with the 320GHz harddrive and stick with the default CPU, you have both been a lot of help with my decision.

Nice one.
Glad I could help. :)

[OregonCoastGamer]

Although a 5400RPM HD consumes less power, the 7200RPM HD will have better performance in gaming. The CPU difference is not incedibley significant, so it may be a money saver (unless theres a greater cache size or FSB). I am not too familiar with the NP2096, but it seems like a decent mid-range laptop for gaming.

[Anewbus]

Although a 5400RPM HD consumes less power, the 7200RPM HD will have better performance in gaming. The CPU difference is not incedibley significant, so it may be a money saver (unless theres a greater cache size or FSB). I am not too familiar with the NP2096, but it seems like a decent mid-range laptop for gaming.

That's what I thought until Justin explained it to me. There seems to be a size and speed cutoff or crossover point. The way I understand it is that I was going to go for the 160GB 7200rpm HD thinking it was going to be greased lighting or something. Then I was told that the 320GB 5400rpm would be more efficient if not faster for gaming than the 160GB 7200rpm HD. It has something to do with the way the platters and read/write aqcuator are arranged and constructed. The 320GB 5400rpm has faster file transfer rate then the smaller 7200rpm HD. Having seen the inside of an HD about 50 times, it made sense to me.
That's the angle I was looking at it anyway. I could be lacking further education on it.
Perhaps it may be different depending on machine? I'm not sure. I do know that the NP2096 and the Force3298v2 are the same machine basically. So I was jumping from that point. :)

[OregonCoastGamer]

Hum.. it may be different for mobile hard drives. I just know that for desktop HDs 7200RPM>5400RPM. Learn something new everyday ;).

[Anewbus]

Hum.. it may be different for mobile hard drives. I just know that for desktop HDs 7200RPM>5400RPM. Learn something new everyday ;).

Yes, I found we are both right. Due to power difference between a desktop and a laptop, what you said is true for desktops. I always look for 7200rpm or more for desktop hard disks.
For laptops it is different, but it also depends on the size of the HD. A 80 or 100GB 7200rpm HD on a laptop will use the same battery energy as a 250 GB 5400rpm HD I believe, if my math is correct. Yes the smaller drive at 7200rpm would be faster than the same drive at 5400rpm and if it was me I would opt for the 7200rpm HD if I had a choice between an 80GB or 100GB. After 100 to 120GB though things get tricky. Things change around when you start talking big laptop HDs. One would not think so and it would be nice if there was one standard, but that's not the way things go I guess.

[DomzWRX]

So we're talking about if I wanted more space, like the 350gb or 500gb (5400)...It is better to get this rather than lets say the 250gb(7200) due to difference of laptops from desktops as we reach more space, and also to save battery life? Hmm-I'm now having to reevaluate my near-future order, once I look into this. Anyone have any calculations or hard documentation on this?

[Anewbus]

So we're talking about if I wanted more space, like the 350gb or 500gb (5400)...It is better to get this rather than lets say the 250gb(7200) due to difference of laptops from desktops as we reach more space, and also to save battery life? Hmm-I'm now having to reevaluate my near-future order, once I look into this. Anyone have any calculations or hard documentation on this?

Essentially, yes. I've been looking at some benchmarks and the ratio of space to speed gives varied results, but the numbers aren't huge differences when you consider things like file transfering. There are differences though at certain point marks. For instance comparing a 160GB 5400rpm with a 120GB 7200 rpm you well notice a difference. However, comparring a 250GB 7200rpm with a 320GB 5400 rpm the difference is too small to be worth the jump.

The thing you really need to consider is heat and battery life as well. A 250GB 7200rpm HD will run hotter and drain your battery quicker. Plus we all know what heat does to electronics. The reason the difference is so small between them perfomance-wise is due to the way the platters and head are structured. The 350GB 5400rpm HD would be more efficient at file transfering giving nearly the same rate , but less impact where heat and batt life are concerned. If I were getting say a 160GB HD or less I would probably go with a 7200RPM, but any bigger I would stick with a 5400.

You can find more info and disscussion on this at Notebook Review under the "Hardware" forum.

[Woody]

Tomshardware has compiled a nice list to compare notebook drives.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hard-disks/workstation-i-o-benchmark-pattern,693.html

You can directly compare benchmarks of many populare drives here.

[Rossdaddy]

Question- I went with dual 250gig 5400rpm drives for my 9262 which just hit phase 4. I know they are the slower drives, but i went with a raid-o. Will the raid-0 make up for the slower HD rpm. Like for example would the setup i chose be faster than lets say a 320 gig 7200rpm HD w/out a raid-0 setup?? I was going to choose the single 320 7200 rpm no raid, but i was assuming i could run a lil cooler with the lower rpm drives with a raid-o setup. Hope the raid-0 is faster than the single higher rpm.
Any help is appreciated.

[Lymn]

Question- I went with dual 250gig 5400rpm drives for my 9262 which just hit phase 3. I know they are the slower drives, but i went with a raid-o. Will the raid-0 make up for the slower HD rpm. Like for example would the setup i chose be faster than lets say a 320 gig 7200rpm HD w/out a raid-0 setup?? I was going to choose the single 320 7200 rpm no raid, but i was assuming i could run a lil cooler with the lower rpm drives with a raid-o setup. Hope the raid-0 is faster than the single higher rpm.
Any help is appreciated.

Well, that is sorta a tough one -- I'm going to say yes Raid-0 (which is what I went with) with 2x 5400 will be faster then 1 7200. Theoretically it's 2x as fast which would be 18000 speeds, however; real world does not work like that and I'd expect more around 10000 speeds. But several things play into this as well, raid controller, operating system raid drivers, etc.