great article, I think we all know when it comes to the newer generation. They're usually better.
One thing, I hope the next time you write this article, plz throw in more hard drives.

great read. It's probably alot of work to throw in more hard drives but if ya could do a part two on it; that would be great.

Benching more hard drives would make this a more worthwhile read.

@aspireonelover
This article wanted to emphasize the difference between older and newer generations, so two hard drives from the same maker but different in generation should do the trick. Maybe if they got another pair from a different maker, then they can do a comparison, too.

they should use real desktop drives. equivalent mainstream models.

i have trouble figuring out which generation i'm buying because they don't put a model number at the retail stores...like with video cards. all they give you is brand and capacity and basic spec that you can read on the box.

LOl ....Yet another hard drive review.For god's shake and for the sake of your readers maybe you could sneak some new (monitor) reviews in.24 INCH would be nice.You used to before,but these days it's more o the same.

good read. I agree i'd like to see a few other hard drives thrown into the mix. Maybe do all hard drives at a certain price range. Meaning capitity and preformance would change. like a 75-100 dollar roundup and that way you can see the difference between capicity vs preformance as well.

@xsamitt
Monitors are hard to review because their so subjectical. If they wrote an article it'd be more fact gathering from a stat's sheet than anything I would think.

Hi Kubes

I agree that Monitors aren't easy to describe.But they used to do it before.I also feel that just because something is subjective(OR hard) doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.I'm pretty sure most people know Tom's isn't what it used to be be that for better or for worse.They do have some nice people working for them which is a good thing.But again I just feel that they are stuck in a rut,with 1 article per day when it used to be 3 and 4.And seem to be reviewing the same things.Surly I can't be the only one who see's the pattern that's so apparent.This is less a negative complaint than hoping Toms reads this and realizes it just needs a little more V8(In other words more people on the helm to liven up the site.Call it constructive criticism because I do with Toms all the best.

Great, now how bout a article on Desktop hdd's.

Just give it a few days...I'm sure it's coming.

Paragraph 6 - "This article compares the three-platter Spinpoint M6 HM500JI with the new Spinpoint M7 HM500LI..."

It took me a while to figure out that this was not consistent with the graphs. All of the figures show the M6 as HM500LI and the M7 as HM500JI.

[citation] and 320-500 GB 3.5” desktop drives.[/citation]
For real??? not a chance, the sweet spot in 3.5" is 640gb-1tb, certainly on a gb/$ basis anyway.

Does anybody actually buy Samsung drives?

Fail. The HM500JI is a two-platter drive from the Spinpoint M7 series. The HM500LI is a three-platter drive from the Spinpoint M6 series. The article says the opposite.

It's a pitty that a laptop's drive generally most of the time is idling by!

As far as I see I'm pretty impressed with the read speeds!
I thought my toshiba HD's 13-18MB/s readspeeds where fast!

It's a pitty harddrive manufacturers don't let the customer know about the improvements!
I'm sure if they did (somehow), that many would spend the extra few bucks on a drive which performs much better.
Although, for notebooks I estimate battery life won't be impacted that much (seeing that drives spend most time being idle).

Like a vga chart, it would be nice to have a chart for desktop (performance), and notebook (performance vs power consumption) HD's.
It'd be nice to have an idea what would happen if we plan on upgrading our current HD.

Though I do have to say that may be quite hard, seeing the sheer amount of harddrive brands and types out there!

Are the "Power Requirement Idle" figures reversed? I thought there was mention that the newer drive "M7" used less power, yet that chart shows that the "M6" uses 10% less power.

(Trekkies may recall that "M5" went crazy and eventually shut itself off.)

@deputc26:
The industry's sweet spot is always the highest possible capacity using a single platter. This is where HDD makers can produce the cheapest drive. Who ever is first to a higher per-platter density has a business advantage. Cost per gigabyte in retail may be different, though.

@ProDigit80: We do have hard drive charts in the charts section as well - check them out here http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] ks,53.html

@NoCaDrummer: The numbers aren't reversed, but the benchmark tool rounds them. It seems idle power is just too close together. Look at the power consumption for the three different tasks - the new M7 is much lower on power here.

Thanks for your feedback!
Patrick