How fast is your hard drive?

[josephwaller]

i just got the UK model UC2F7UK with an 80GB hard disk. I can't work out what speed the disk is but i'm guessing it's 5400 as all the 80s seem to be that speed.

I can change it (or return it) this weekend and am considering getting the smaller hard disk.

Anybody got any advice? How can i check the speed? And how much difference will faster really make to windows, photoshop, programming, games?

thanks in advance

[Steve007]

Yours will be the 5400RPM model, for proof:

http://www-306.ibm.com/pc/support/site. ... ry=2373F7G

[Leon]

nether is better..... if you need the extra 20GB (a LOT of space) on your laptop, then get 80.... ff you won't need that extra space, or don't mind the inconvenience of putting extra storage elsewhere, then get the 60 for the extra speed.....


case closed!

[rhobite]

What's the question? If you're asking me what I have, it's a 40GB 5400 RPM. I think the 60GB 7200 RPM is faster than the 80GB 5400 RPM, but of course if you need the storage you'll want the 80GB or a 100GB.

[josephwaller]

well thanks for all the responses.

Reading around it looks like how fast the HD is depends on more than just the rpm e.g. seek time and transfer rate.

i'm really just trying to work out if i spent plenty money on a decent CPU and amount of RAM and then am actually slowing it down a step or two with a slower hard disk. if i'm going to get a noticeable improvement with a faster hard disk then i'll exhange it.

i suspect i won't be certain enough by the weekend to go through the hassle of changing it. But then - as i'm sure is true for many of my fellow thinkpad owners out there - i'm the kinda person that once i ask myself a question i stubbornly search out the answer. So i'll feedback if i do.

thanks again.

[Marc_G]

Let me offer another perspective. I recently Ghosted my C: partition to another partition on the same physical hard drive.

We're talking about reading about 7 GB worth of data on the partition and writing a 4 GB file of compressed data. With the stock 60 GB 7200 RPM drive, this operation takes about 16 minutes. It took about 21 minutes using the drive I've currently got, which is a __4200__ RPM 80 GB drive (long story, admin error, getting a 5400 80 GB soon).

So, about 30% more time using this "very slow" drive in a process that is extremely HD intensive. In my experience, on a fast computer, compressing the data happens faster than disk access, and is not limiting.

So, presumably the 5400 RPM drive is partway between these two extremes. I don't see a 30% speed difference of the 4200 RMP as being THAT big a deal (significant, but not worth all the threads I'm seeing), and if we split the difference and say the 5400 drive would be about 15% slower than the 7200, wel... unless you're a real speed demon you probably will hardly notice it.

I know I write heresy here, as many of the folks are enamored with the fast drive, but for typical use I don't see the big deal.

Marc

[kev009]

The 7k60 will really shine as the drive becomes full and fragmented.

[carbon_unit]

I guess I'll find out because my 7k60 showed up today.

[JHEM]

Let me offer another perspective. I recently Ghosted my C: partition to another partition on the same physical hard drive.

In your example, the bottleneck is the IDE channel itself, not the relative speeds of the HDs involved.

Same reason you should never put your CD or DVD drive and your burner on the same IDE channel in your desktop.

Regardes,

James

[g8ina]

Wont the cache size make a speed difference too ? 2MB Vs 8MB etc ?? Just curious...

[Marc_G]

In your example, the bottleneck is the IDE channel itself, not the relative speeds of the HDs involved.

Great point James!

EDIT: No, wait. The source and destination are on the same physical HD, though in different partitions.

So, if the speed bottleneck is the IDE channel, wouldn't that mean that the IDE channel is slower than the HD's data transfer rate, which I believe isn't the case? Maybe I'm missing something.

[ChristopherTD]

In a similar vein it takes less than 5 minutes to create a disk image from the C: partition on my 2.1Ghz T42p (around 4.5GB of compressed data) to the 80GB drive in the Ultrabay slim.

The same operation on my A21p took around 35 minutes from a 80GB to a second 80GB.

I am sure processor speed has an effect on the operation when you are compressing the data...

[JHEM]

In your example, the bottleneck is the IDE channel itself, not the relative speeds of the HDs involved.

EDIT: No, wait. The source and destination are on the same physical HD, though in different partitions.

Precisely, the source and destination are on the same IDE channel as well as being on the same drive, which is another bottleneck.

WARNING! Simplistic description follows!

With the setup as described the pathway for the data is from the first partition into memory, then an electronic "switch" to the second partition and a "flow reversal" to write the data back from memory. This constant "switching" is the primary source of the bottleneck.

Were the primary HD on one IDE channel and the second HD on the second IDE channel, the data path is from one HD directly to the second.

Regards,

James

[none]

Well I deffinetely prefer the 60GB, because it's noticeably faster when I do hard drive intensive things. I guess everyone has different needs and applications, but personally, if I needed more space I'd get an Ultrabay hard drive. That would really be more space, not to mention faster swap files, and a lot more usefulness for backups (why backup on the same drive, when so many drive disasters are mechanical and wipe out all partitions).. Just my $0.02