Why don't we prefer smaller laptop HDDs in desktops?

firstrig · Jan 21, 2014

Given that the performance is identical, why don't many people use/recommend using a smaller (laptop-sized) hard disk in a desktop since that will air airflow in the case which was otherwise blocked by a bulky desktop HDD.

Airflow aside, just for theoretical reasons, why do we still use bulky hard disks when smaller ones are available?

PS : This question has nothing to do with SSDs.

Alec Mowat · Jan 21, 2014

"Given that the performance is identical"

That's not true. Most Laptop drives are only 5,400 RPM. Desktop drives are 7,200 on average.

aevm · Jan 21, 2014

Bulky hard disks are bulky because they store lots of data, e.g. 4TB. Laptop disks are physically smaller but they also store less data.

Performance is not identical either. Laptop disks typically run at 5400 rpm to conserve energy, and they are much slower than a high-end desktop HDD like the Velociraptor 1TB or WD Caviar Black 4TB.

Besides, HDDs don't really block airflow. They're usually on one side of the case.

giantbucket · Jan 21, 2014

I use them for OS installs. WD Black, specifically. No reason to use up a full 3.5" bay for an OS-only drive, and price is very acceptable.

Laptop WD Blacks are 7200rpm, by the way.

Someone Somewhere · Jan 21, 2014

There are plenty of both 7200RPM and 5400RPM drives in both form factors.

The main issue is that you can't get really high capacity laptop drives (bigger than 1TB), they cost more, and most cases have a lot more 3.5" slots than 2.5".

firstrig · Jan 22, 2014

Thanks for all the answers guys

Beyond 1TB = Desktop HDD is more economical
Upto 1TB = Laptop disk with 7200RPM will do.

So basically the sweet point lies at 1TB.

Someone Somewhere · Jan 22, 2014

Thing is that 500/750GB drives still tend to be cheaper in 3.5". It's just that you can actually get a laptop version.

giantbucket · Jan 22, 2014

i wouldn't say that 1T is the sweet spot since there's not that many that go past 1T in the laptop size. For an OS, really anything past 250G is just a luxury, so for those instances even a simple 320G or 500G laptop WD Black is more than enough, and in some cases (chassis), you don't get a lot of drive bays to play with anyways so using a laptop-size drive that you can stuff in a corner more easily is very sensible (like many ITX boxes). leave the 3.5" drive bays for your bulk media storage.

and the cost difference isn't that significant in this capacity / format anyways (500G in 3.5" versus 500G in 2.5"). $5 one way or another doesn't make or break a system build.

sometimes, the 2.5" drives are actually spec'd better as far as load/unload cycles, operating shock, etc. they use less power (than 3.5" drives) too, which is nice - and if you're making your own custom power harness they only need a 5V line and not 5V+12V.

Someone Somewhere · Jan 22, 2014

Yeah, but 3.5" drives still tend to be cheaper than 2.5" ones in every size.

Plus most cases have vibration damping on the 3.5" slots, but not on the 2.5" slots, which are usually used for SSDs.

popatim · Jan 22, 2014

3.5" drives are faster than their 2.5" counterparts in sequential speeds due to their larger platters having to move more 'platter' beneath the heads per rpm.

2.5" drives typically have faster access times due to the smaller area their heads need to cover

Search

Why don't we prefer smaller laptop HDDs in desktops?

firstrig

Honorable

Someone Somewhere

Alec Mowat

Honorable

aevm

Illustrious

giantbucket

Dignified

Someone Somewhere

Titan

firstrig

Honorable

Someone Somewhere

Titan

giantbucket

Dignified

Someone Somewhere

Titan

popatim

Titan

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page