Is it worthy to upgrade to 7K60 drive???

Message

ludu35 · #1 Post by **ludu35** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:26 pm

hello all,
Just got a T42, but the drive is 5400rpm drive, i would like to upgrade it to 7K60 (IBM), but wonder that if it worth the money to do the upgrade?
What about E7K60? what diff between them?
Please advice. TIA
Ludu

Blake · #2 Post by **Blake** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:58 pm

YES YES YES and please search, everyone that has upgraded to this drive, includeing me has loved every second of it...

the e7k60 is not really meant to be used for our setups

check out the drive here, its a great deal and prob the best arround w/ free second day, takes about 3 days total with the whole ordering process to get it

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe ... ode=100519

sugo · #3 Post by **sugo** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:30 pm

I would say it depends on your priority.

The 7K60 does provide better performance over 5400rpm drives but it's not night and day. Some people need more space than 60GB.

edelrc · #4 Post by **edelrc** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:48 pm

I always wanted best the 5K80, but that is because capacity was and is my priority. Now, however I somehow like the 7K60 and recognice that for restoring partition backups takes only 3 minutes!!!

Other than that, you barely will notice the diference among both. The big difference is found among the 4K and 5K. 7K, at the end, is just slightly faster, unless you do full backups and restorations very frecuently.

etherealtml · #5 Post by **etherealtml** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:34 pm

I tireed a 7200rpm drive for a few days, and i didnt notice much performance, but i did notice alot more noise including the high pitched whirl of the disk spinning during idle time, and it was much louder when it was writing to the drive. If anyone cares, it was a Toshiba 50GB.

Plus, high performance drives tend to consume more power on average, and so that was also a factor for me.

I switched back to the original 5400 rpm drive, and my computer was- again- quiet as a whisper.

edelrc · #6 Post by **edelrc** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:51 pm

The consume difference is barelly noticiable. Someone clic in this forum wrote about that already.

Regarding the noise, yes 7k is noiser, but just a tad louder, no more. It is also a little hotter, but again difficult to notice. If that toshiba was loud it is because with time many drivers louse their quietness. I remember that a 4K that i had became more noiser than the 7K that i have now. Time and treatment that you will impose in your drive will be more determinant in the noise that you will get from it than the speed of the drive itself.

The real dilema is capacity vs. performance. I prefer capacity and I think most should care more about it too but in this forum most prefer that edge in speed of the 7K instead... the choice is yours.

JHEM · #7 Post by **JHEM** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:52 pm

I feel the urge to respond to offset some statements made about 7200RPM HDs that are not universally true.

The slight increase in power consumption by a 7200 HD vs. a 5400 HD is negligible at worst. This can be readily seen by checking the specification sheets on the manufacturers' websites.

All of my Hitachi 7K60s (7 and counting) are whisper quiet. I've got about 30 out in the field in client's machines and have received nothing but glowing reports.

Just my experience, take it for what it's worth.

Regards,

James

none · #8 Post by **none** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:14 pm

I think it's really what you use it for that will make a difference. I had a 5400RPM Toshiba in my old T30, and my T41p has the 7K60 in it...

Is it faster when you open up Internet Explorer (I mean Firefox) - Nope... But is it faster when you archive a 300MB folder into a .zip (I mean .rar) file? Heck yea! If you work with large files, you will deffinetely notice a difference...

As a side note, this 7K60 is also surprisingly quiet. I'd say it's actually about half as audiable as the T30 drive was!

dfumento · #9 Post by **dfumento** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:22 pm

Has anyone done benchmarks doing Microsoft Access queuries using 5400 vs. 7200 drives?

Blake · #10 Post by **Blake** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:33 am

also if your worried about storage or backup for about 15 bucks on ebay you can an external 2.5 hard drive case and put your old drive in, and BAM you have a nice very portable backup drive

w0qj · #11 Post by **w0qj** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:53 am

see last month's Tom's Hardware for direct comparison of Hitachi Travelstar
7K60 vs. 5K80 (and many other HDD brands similar to 5K80).
http://www6.tomshardware.com/mobile/20041213/index.html

the benchmarks were dominated by 7K60.

the 5K80 was middle-of-the-pack, average to other brands and definitely slower than 7K60.

There was another Tom's Hardware link to an old report (more than 1 year ago i believe) that demonstrate 7K60 power consumption only very slightly more than 5K80's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20030813/index.html

personally i've voted with my wallet and bought 7K60, and there is quite a noticable difference as compared to my old 5K40 HDD.

ThinkPad · #12 Post by **ThinkPad** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:30 am

Im debating between the the 7K60 hard drive and a 100GB drive. I need diskspace, but if I can get faster processing with a 7k hardrive then I will get that instead. If the differences are not that noticeable, then I will get the 100 gb

Cecilia76 · #13 Post by **Cecilia76** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:02 am

What about an 80/100 Gb @ 7200 rpm??
Do you think it is possible to have it in the future?
Is it a long wait??

C.

raabjerg · #14 Post by **raabjerg** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:52 am

I've tried replacing a 5400RPM drive with a 7K60, a couple of times, hoping to get better performance. In my opinion the performance increase is substantial.

However, for me, the 7K60 was too loud. Not on read/write operations, but rather a constant high-pitch note that was much more audible than the 5400RPM drive. I'm beginning to suspect I have a somewhat sensitive hearing...

edelrc · #15 Post by **edelrc** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:05 am

Please, do specify if those noisy drives are IBM´s new HDD or you had got them used or from not IBM. Those of us who have both IBM drives and brand new ones do notice a little noiser 7K HDD but the difference is for most unnoticiable and you have to check several times and with your ear next to the drive.

Your choice should be easier, capacity vs. speed and no much more, both are equally great drives. Personally, I would prefer for me the 5K80 because I can use better the extra 20GB than the puntual higher speed that unleess you use frequently very large files you should not care much about. Noise difference is irrelevant, and I am the one more picky on noisy since I work at night in lonelly enviroments.

raabjerg · #16 Post by **raabjerg** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:25 am

The 7K60's I mentioned were brand new, but not purchased from IBM. However, I don't see the difference, as we're talking about the same drive anyways, right?

pae77 · #17 Post by **pae77** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:22 am

Just upgraded to the Hitachi Travelstar 7k60 from the original 20G HD that came on my now old T30. Feels like a whole new machine. Supercharged! Well worth the money imho.

Noisewise, I noticed when I first put the drive in that it was pretty noisy for the first 15 minutes of its operating life. Then it seemed to smooth out and quiet down to the point where it is just slightly noisier than the old drive, but still very quiet, and I am one of the sensitive people. Maybe it just needed to break in a bit like a car engine? I was worried about the noise issue before buying the drive but am pleased to report that it is not a problem for me.

#18 Post by **daeojkim** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:33 pm

I believe the 7k60 will more noticeable difference in older model laptops where HD were slower.

In the new models 5400 rpm models such as 80GB Seagate 5400.2 are real performers and they do not lag much behind 7k60 as far as performance goes.

Like someone here said if you a 2-3 year old laptop and replace the original HD with 7k60 it will feel like a shot of viagra.

JonathanGennick · #19 Post by **JonathanGennick** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:58 pm

What daeojkim said might well be true. I was thinking just today about my recent upgrade from a 5400rpm drive to a 7200rpm drive. While I can convince myself of some, small improvement in responsiveness, I honestly cannot call the difference "significant".

What is significant is the heat. That I do notice. When I set this beastie on my lap, things get a whole lot hotter than they used to.

So, the end result of going to a faster hard-drive seems, for me, to be a greater inclination to work more with my laptop set on a table and less with it actually on my lap.

kev009 · #20 Post by **kev009** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:34 pm

The problem I notice with desktop high-RPM drives is although they are reletivly quiet new, they tend to get much louder as time goes by. Even a couple of years can bring about a significant increase to noise. Has anyone been running 7K60s since they were introduced? If so, how do they hold up over time for spin and seek noise?

JHEM · #21 Post by **JHEM** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:55 pm

I've been running 7K60s since they were first released.

None of them are any noisier now than they were when new. Must be because of the fluid bearings.

Regards,

James

macmac · #22 Post by **macmac** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:40 am

Blake wrote: the e7k60 is not really meant to be used for our setups

What did you mean by that?

The E7K60 is simply a 7K60 that is designed to be more reliable under 24/7 operation, while the 7K60 model is "only rated for 333 operating hours per month."

That is my understanding anyways.

davidlg16 · #23 Post by **davidlg16** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:26 am

from reading previous posts on this topic, the e7k60 seems to be designed for 24/7 operation, which is exactly why it is not meant to be used on a thinkpad.

I believe it has something to do with the mechanical design of the drive. It is especially designed to be constantly on/spinning. I guess from this logic it would be obvious that the e7k60 is at a disadvantage when used on non-server machines because it would be more vulnerable to the constant turning on and off of laptops.

pae77 · #24 Post by **pae77** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:38 am

I recall reading something about the e model not being able to take advantage of some of the power saving features when installed in TP's, so they are not ideal for that application.

gazingwa · #25 Post by **gazingwa** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:45 am

and what about the performance of the 40gnx? compared to the 7k60

craigg · #26 Post by **craigg** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:19 pm

My T43 came with the 80GB 5400rpm drive. Since I had an extra 60GB 7200rpm drive here I decided to test it and I must say that there is a big difference. Access time for page loads are almost instantaneous. Even though I like the idea of having the larger drive, for now I will leave this 60GB drive in it's new home. Combined with 1gb of ram and this T43 is as fast as most high end desktops.

#27 Post by **daeojkim** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:38 pm

craigg wrote:My T43 came with the 80GB 5400rpm drive. Since I had an extra 60GB 7200rpm drive here I decided to test it and I must say that there is a big difference. Access time for page loads are almost instantaneous. Even though I like the idea of having the larger drive, for now I will leave this 60GB drive in it's new home. Combined with 1gb of ram and this T43 is as fast as most high end desktops.

Craigg this you have all the same setting and softwares installed on your 80GB as it was on the 60GB? I am just asking because If the 80GB was factory setting with all the IBM preinstalled softwares, it will run much slower than a fresh installed XP.

If as you say both HDs had the same softwares and settings then I would be convinced that 7k60 makes a markedly noticeable difference.

craigg · #28 Post by **craigg** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:58 pm

I made an exact clone of my 80gb drive including the rescue and recovery partition. There is a noticeable difference between the two drives...no question about it!

daeojkim said:

Craigg this you have all the same setting and softwares installed on your 80GB as it was on the 60GB? I am just asking because If the 80GB was factory setting with all the IBM preinstalled softwares, it will run much slower than a fresh installed XP.

If as you say both HDs had the same softwares and settings then I would be convinced that 7k60 makes a markedly noticeable difference.[/quote

#29 Post by **daeojkim** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:22 pm

OK now that you say so I will have to go and order 7k60 .. I was in dilemma about whether I should get the Segate 80GB or hitachi 7k60...

Thanks for the input.

CantabRich · #30 Post by **CantabRich** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:58 am

craigg: you mentioned that you made an exact clone of both drives; could I ask you exactly how you did that? I purchased True Image with the intention of doing this, but have failed so far - the process hangs halfway saying that the configuration of the source drive has changed.

I have searched other posts, and there is apparently a method (use the Recover Disks to half-install windows and then create the image) but I would be grateful if you would tell how you went about creating your clone

Is it worthy to upgrade to 7K60 drive???

Is it worthy to upgrade to 7K60 drive???

Who is online