Older 160 GB 7200rpm VS Newer 750 GB 5400rpm drive

hyelton · May 8, 2015

So I recently got me a Dell Latitude E4300 and it came with a 160 GB 7200rpm drive, Im going to assume it was the original one which the laptop was built in 2009/2010.

Anyway I have a newer Hitachi Drive hardly ever been used that`s 750 GB but is 5400rpm. Its from around 2012.

Would I be better off keeping the older 160 GB or swapping over to the 750 GB one?

Would prefer performance of storage.

Thanks.

hyelton · May 8, 2015

Off topic to this but I just got this email....

Your thread "Older 160 GB 7200rpm VS Newer 750 GB 5400rpm drive" has been removed from Tom's Hardware. Please be sure to comply with the Rules of Conduct and guidelines for posting.

Don't want to receive email alerts? Click on the following link to unsubscribe

USAFRet · May 8, 2015

hyelton :

You got that, because there were two identical threads. One was deleted.
By me.

ak47jar3d · May 8, 2015

It's not that simply. You cant compare rpm and assume that the one more speed with automatically be faster. More often than not, newer drivers will be faster since HDD keeps getting better (like the addition of 128mb cache).

USAFRet · May 8, 2015

Old 160GB 7200RPM
slightly newer 750GB 5400RPM

Probably not a lot of realworld difference.

But the 160GB is closer to actually dying.

hyelton · May 8, 2015

USAFRet :

Only posted once (only clicked post once as well) Weird.

USAFRet · May 8, 2015

hyelton :

USAFRet :

Only posted once (only clicked post once as well) Weird.

It happens. No problem.

hyelton · May 8, 2015

This might help a bit:

160 GB - http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/5905/WDC-WD1600BJKT-75F4T0

750 GB - http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1367/Hitachi-HTS547575A9E384

JackNaylorPE · May 8, 2015

Two words .... "areal density". Today's drives are orders of magnitude faster than older 160GB drives.

From 1998 to 2006 the areal density of HDs went up by a factor of 50. Over that period HD speed went up by a factor of 9

160 TGB HDs were "typical" desktop drives back in 2008 and earlier....

- Western Digital Caviar SE (WD1600AAJS,SATA/300,160 GB,8 MB Cache ) for example had a max read speed of 64 MB/sec

- Hitachi 7K160 (HDS721616PLA380,SATA/300,160 GB,8 MB Cache) had a max throughput of 60.5 MB/s- /

- Samsung SpinPoint V80CE (SV1604E,UltraATA/100,160 GB,2 MB Cache ) had a max throughput of 39 MB/s

On Laptops, we see that

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2.5-hard-drive-charts-2008/Average-Read-Transfer-Performance,675.html

- A Seagate Momentus 7200.2 (ST9160823ASG,SATA300/NCQ,160 GB, 8 MB Cache,7200 rpm) had a read speed of 45.80 MB/s

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2014-mobile-hdd-charts/-01-Read-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2988.html

- A Western Digital Red WD10JFCX (1 TB, 5400 rpm, SATA 6 Gb/s) has a read speed more than double that at 93.52 MB/s and will cost ya maybe $70

hyelton · May 8, 2015

JackNaylorPE :

Two words .... "areal density". Today's drives are orders of magnitude faster than older 160GB drives.

From 1998 to 2006 the areal density of HDs went up by a factor of 50. Over that period HD speed went up by a factor of 9

160 TGB HDs were "typical" desktop drives back in 2008 and earlier....

- Western Digital Caviar SE (WD1600AAJS,SATA/300,160 GB,8 MB Cache ) for example had a max read speed of 64 MB/sec

- Hitachi 7K160 (HDS721616PLA380,SATA/300,160 GB,8 MB Cache) had a max throughput of 60.5 MB/s- /

- Samsung SpinPoint V80CE (SV1604E,UltraATA/100,160 GB,2 MB Cache ) had a max throughput of 39 MB/s

On Laptops, we see that

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2.5-hard-drive-charts-2008/Average-Read-Transfer-Performance,675.html

- A Seagate Momentus 7200.2 (ST9160823ASG,SATA300/NCQ,160 GB, 8 MB Cache,7200 rpm) had a read speed of 45.80 MB/s

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2014-mobile-hdd-charts/-01-Read-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2988.html

- A Western Digital Red WD10JFCX (1 TB, 5400 rpm, SATA 6 Gb/s) has a read speed more than double that at 93.52 MB/s and will cost ya maybe $70

Thanks!, Not looking to buy one just looking to use current stuff I own

This is not a main use computer, Just a secondary desk PC or travel laptop.

inzgary · May 8, 2015

Another notable difference is that the 5400 RPM drive will give you a slightly longer laptop battery life than with the older 7200 RPM.

hyelton · May 8, 2015

My main concern is performance. So 750 GB?

inzgary · May 8, 2015

The benchmarks show the Hitachi has better performance. You could benchmark your current drive, swap them, and then benchmark the new one to be 100% sure.

hyelton · May 8, 2015

inzgary :

Yeah I have it in my server and it seems to be about a 15% increase. So Out it goes and into the laptop.

Thanks all!

Search

Older 160 GB 7200rpm VS Newer 750 GB 5400rpm drive

hyelton

Honorable

inzgary

hyelton

Honorable

USAFRet

Titan

ak47jar3d

Champion

USAFRet

Titan

hyelton

Honorable

USAFRet

Titan

hyelton

Honorable

JackNaylorPE

Titan

hyelton

Honorable

inzgary

Distinguished

hyelton

Honorable

inzgary

Distinguished

hyelton

Honorable

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page