| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Which drive would you get?
One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM
64MB cache. |
Which drive would you get?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM 64MB cache. Where and how will it be used? For most applications, the modest speed advantage of modern 7200rpm drives doesn't outweigh the higher cost, vibration, noise, and heat. |
Which drive would you get?
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 13:37:40 -0700, (Neill Massello)
wrote: Yousuf Khan wrote: One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM 64MB cache. Where and how will it be used? For most applications, the modest speed advantage of modern 7200rpm drives doesn't outweigh the higher cost, vibration, noise, and heat. +1 |
Which drive would you get?
On 1/26/2019 3:37 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM 64MB cache. Where and how will it be used? For most applications, the modest speed advantage of modern 7200rpm drives doesn't outweigh the higher cost, vibration, noise, and heat. The question is is the 256MB cache a bigger advantage than the 7200RPM rotation? |
Which drive would you get?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
The question is is the 256MB cache a bigger advantage than the 7200RPM rotation? I don't know, and it would probably depend on whether you were doing random or sequential reads or writes. The acid test would be . . . a test. See if Storage Review has any for the models in question. https://www.storagereview.com |
Which drive would you get?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM ^^^^^^^^___ 5400 RPM 64MB cache. Depends on how you use the drive. If you repeatedly access the same file or same data then a larger cache would be faster (as long as the data size doesn't excessively exceed the cache size). The OS has its own buffers. Applications will also have their own buffers. If you typically open files, close them, and don't revisit them then a shorter seek (faster RPM) might be faster. We don't know how you will be using the drive(s), if it will be just a data disk or an OS disk, etc. The above is just a generic assumption. You don't mention brands and models of the drives you intend to get. What might look like a slower drive might perform better than what might look like a faster drive. Specifications are handy but they are not absolute. Look around for drive benchmarks that log the results for the two drives in which you are interested. Benchmarks may indicate which drive is better but they only compare drives based on those benchmarks, not real use. You also don't mean the capacities of the two drives. If capacity isn't an issue, you might want to go to an SSD for the best performance. What's the price difference between the two unidentified disks? If one drive is 0.17% faster than the other, would you notice its performance difference (since the objective of your computer is not to run benchmarks but use it) and would it be worth the price difference? |
Which drive would you get?
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 14:45:00 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote: One choice of drives is a 5900 RPM 256MB cache. The other is a 7200 RPM 64MB cache. A 5900 rpm drive will run significantly cooler than a 7200. I run both speeds in the same brand/model of USB external box. The drives are all 4TB each. The 7200 drives run at 35-39 C while the 5900 runs at 25-30 C. Thus, the 5400 drive should have a longer effective life based on cooler drives tend to run longer due to lower temperature stress on (electronic) parts. |
Which drive would you get?
|
Which drive would you get?
|
Which drive would you get?
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:04:45 +0100, Filip454
wrote: A 5900 rpm drive will run significantly cooler than a 7200. I run both speeds in the same brand/model of USB external box. The drives are all 4TB each. The 7200 drives run at 35-39 C while the 5900 runs at 25-30 C. Thus, the 5400 drive should have a longer effective life based on cooler drives tend to run longer due to lower temperature stress on (electronic) parts. This is the biggest myth, which is also constantly repeated on the internet. Lower temperature =/= running longer It is no myth for electronic components. Running hotter = shorter component life. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com