Swapping to a faster HDD...
in [Laptops]
|
From: Sjouke Burry on 19 May 2010 15:25 Bob Villa wrote: > On May 19, 11:58 am, "RnR" <rnrte...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ...more heat...faster speed. Won't battery run-time take a hit? If > you run on battery often...I wonder if it's worth it?! > > bob > > Also take into consideration the sometimes irritating whine the high-speed disks emit. My second harddisk does that, and I put it to sleep after 20 seconds inactivity.
From: ~misfit~ on 21 May 2010 02:10 Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sjouke Burry wrote: > Bob Villa wrote: >> On May 19, 11:58 am, "RnR" <rnrte...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> ...more heat...faster speed. Won't battery run-time take a hit? If >> you run on battery often...I wonder if it's worth it?! >> >> bob >> >> > Also take into consideration the sometimes irritating whine > the high-speed disks emit. > My second harddisk does that, and I put it to sleep after > 20 seconds inactivity. It's been my experience that modern drives are more efficient than older ones. I'm usually replacing an older drive with a new, faster one. In general 7,200rpm drives use they same power that 5,400rpm drives did two or three years ago. Therefore they don't run hotter *or* run your battery down faster. You can google the HDD models to find power consumption. Most manufacturers have downloadable PDF spec sheets. The hottest drives I've monitored have actually been 4,200rpm and 5,400rpm drives. I reckon it's because their bearings and motors aren't as efficient as newer drives. (I monitor all my hard drives with Hard Disk Sentinel for temperature as well as SMART parameters. I'm *very* particular about temps so do know what I'm talking about, within my own experience of upgrading ~12 laptop HDDs.) -- Shaun. "When we dream.... that's just our brains defragmenting" G Jackson.
From: BillW50 on 21 May 2010 06:19 In news:ht585f$prb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, ~misfit~ typed on Fri, 21 May 2010 18:10:50 +1200: > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sjouke Burry wrote: >> Bob Villa wrote: >>> On May 19, 11:58 am, "RnR" <rnrte...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> ...more heat...faster speed. Won't battery run-time take a hit? If >>> you run on battery often...I wonder if it's worth it?! >>> >>> bob >>> >>> >> Also take into consideration the sometimes irritating whine >> the high-speed disks emit. >> My second harddisk does that, and I put it to sleep after >> 20 seconds inactivity. > > It's been my experience that modern drives are more efficient than > older ones. I'm usually replacing an older drive with a new, faster > one. In general 7,200rpm drives use they same power that 5,400rpm > drives did two or three years ago. Therefore they don't run hotter > *or* run your battery down faster. > > You can google the HDD models to find power consumption. Most > manufacturers have downloadable PDF spec sheets. The hottest drives > I've monitored have actually been 4,200rpm and 5,400rpm drives. I > reckon it's because their bearings and motors aren't as efficient as > newer drives. > (I monitor all my hard drives with Hard Disk Sentinel for temperature > as well as SMART parameters. I'm *very* particular about temps so do > know what I'm talking about, within my own experience of upgrading > ~12 laptop HDDs.) I just got a newsletter yesterday from Asus that they are going to release a drive that will be: - 20% faster than a 600GB 10K-RPM SATA drive - 80% faster than a traditional 7200-RPM drive - 150% faster than a traditional 5400-RPM drive - Boots within 6 seconds of an SSD drive I don't know what it is or anything. I guess we will find out. On the other hand, I have upgraded slow 4200 RPM drives in laptops with 5400 RPM drives and I see no big difference. These are all PATA drives though, maybe that is why. This laptop is the only one with a SATA drive. I never upgraded this one, but this one comes out of hibernation twice as fast as my PATA drives do. So Shaun, are you talking SATA or PATA drives? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
From: ~misfit~ on 23 May 2010 06:06
Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote: > In news:ht585f$prb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, > ~misfit~ typed on Fri, 21 May 2010 18:10:50 +1200: >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sjouke Burry wrote: >>> Bob Villa wrote: >>>> On May 19, 11:58 am, "RnR" <rnrte...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> ...more heat...faster speed. Won't battery run-time take a hit? If you >>>> run on battery often...I wonder if it's worth it?! >>>> >>>> bob >>>> >>>> >>> Also take into consideration the sometimes irritating whine >>> the high-speed disks emit. >>> My second harddisk does that, and I put it to sleep after >>> 20 seconds inactivity. >> >> It's been my experience that modern drives are more efficient than >> older ones. I'm usually replacing an older drive with a new, faster >> one. In general 7,200rpm drives use they same power that 5,400rpm >> drives did two or three years ago. Therefore they don't run hotter >> *or* run your battery down faster. >> >> You can google the HDD models to find power consumption. Most >> manufacturers have downloadable PDF spec sheets. The hottest drives >> I've monitored have actually been 4,200rpm and 5,400rpm drives. I >> reckon it's because their bearings and motors aren't as efficient as >> newer drives. >> (I monitor all my hard drives with Hard Disk Sentinel for temperature >> as well as SMART parameters. I'm *very* particular about temps so do >> know what I'm talking about, within my own experience of upgrading >> ~12 laptop HDDs.) > > I just got a newsletter yesterday from Asus that they are going to > release a drive that will be: > > - 20% faster than a 600GB 10K-RPM SATA drive > - 80% faster than a traditional 7200-RPM drive > - 150% faster than a traditional 5400-RPM drive > - Boots within 6 seconds of an SSD drive > > I don't know what it is or anything. I guess we will find out. I'd say that it's a hybrid SSD / mechanical. > On the other hand, I have upgraded slow 4200 RPM drives in laptops > with 5400 RPM drives and I see no big difference. These are all PATA > drives though, maybe that is why. This laptop is the only one with a > SATA drive. I never upgraded this one, but this one comes out of > hibernation twice as fast as my PATA drives do. So Shaun, are you > talking SATA or PATA drives? Both actually although I can no longer find a local source of 7,200rpm PATA drives. :-( I agree though, the difference is more noticable with a SATA interface. -- Shaun. "When we dream.... that's just our brains defragmenting" G Jackson. |