Jump to content



Photo

1TB @ 7200rpm vs. 2TB @ 5400rpm

hard drives hdds

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 mikeyx12

mikeyx12

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 07-December 05

Posted 19 March 2012 - 16:54

Just wondering what (if any) speed difference there would be between a 7200rpm 1TB HDD with 32MB cache and a 5400rpm 2TB HDD with 64MB cache?

Obviously 7200rpm would be faster if both the same size and cache - but in this case, with a higher aerial density and double the cache, would the 2TB be faster?


#2 Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 19 March 2012 - 16:55

I guess it depends on if it's going to be your OS drive or not. Double density could be faster if the drives are constructed with the same amount of platters. If the drive is just your storage drive then obviously get the 2TB one :)

#3 xendrome

xendrome

    In God We Trust; All Others We Monitor

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 05-December 01
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Posted 19 March 2012 - 16:59

I'd guess that 7200RPM is always going to be faster...

#4 OP mikeyx12

mikeyx12

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 07-December 05

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:01

I guess it depends on if it's going to be your OS drive or not. Double density could be faster if the drives are constructed with the same amount of platters. If the drive is just your storage drive then obviously get the 2TB one :)

The OS would be installed on it, so will be used for the OS and general storage.


I'd guess that 7200RPM is always going to be faster...

Why?

#5 still1

still1

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 30-September 09
  • Location: United States

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:04

Why?


RPM abbrev Rotation Per Minute

so if the spindle rotate faster, the faster it is to fetch data.. I am not sure if the 64Mb cache make a difference compared to 32MB

#6 butilikethecookie

butilikethecookie

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 05-March 12

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:06

If your using it as a secondary drive for storing Data, get the 2TB drive. If you are installing Windows on it, programs, etc. Get the 1TB drive.

#7 Muhammad Farrukh

Muhammad Farrukh

    The End is Nigh

  • Joined: 15-August 11

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:09

If you are gonna use it as a primary drive, for Windows and etc. get the 7200 RPM one, because it will be faster.
If it is for data storage, things like Videos, Music, Photos and random documents, then 5400 RPM should do.

#8 ScorpioRGc1

ScorpioRGc1

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 28-August 08
  • Location: Greenville, NC, U.S.A.
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:10

I'd figure it depends on the drive. About a year and a half ago when I was looking to get a new drive, I was looking at getting a Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB, which is a 7200rpm HDD. But then I saw NewEgg had a Samsung EcoGreen F4 2TB 5400rpm drive for just $10 more. Like the OP, I was curious as to how much slower the F4 2TB drive would perform than the faster-spinning F3 1TB. However, based on a couple of user benchmarks I found online (I'm thinking possibly HardForum, but I could be mistaken) showed the two drives performed virtually identical. I believe the reason was the two drives have the same number of platters, but the F4's are twice as dense, IIRC. So I went ahead and bought the F4 and have been quite happy with it (I've been using it as my primary boot drive without any complaints). In fact, I just bought a second one to use as a backup drive to replace my old 500GB RAID0 array.

But yeah, I'd say it depends largely on the drives in question. :)

#9 +TCLN Ryster

TCLN Ryster

    Evil Teddy Rules!

  • Joined: 02-August 04
  • Location: Uttoxeter, UK

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:10

Or if the 1TB drives are cheaper than the 2TB, get two and Raid 0 them :)

#10 philcruicks

philcruicks

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • Location: Bracknell, UK
  • OS: Win 7
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:11

7200 for OS drive (faster access times)
2TB for data storage (larger capacity)

#11 OP mikeyx12

mikeyx12

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 07-December 05

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:26

Thanks for the replies, but I'm not looking for a "this or that" answer. I'm asking about speed differences, nothing else. :)


RPM abbrev Rotation Per Minute

so if the spindle rotate faster, the faster it is to fetch data.. I am not sure if the 64Mb cache make a difference compared to 32MB

If the aerial density is higher, it's also faster to fetch data, hence my question...

7200 for OS drive (faster access times)
2TB for data storage (larger capacity)

Yes, the 2TB has a larger capacity. I had no idea :laugh:

How do you know the 7200 has faster access times? Are you able to point me to somewhere that has those sort of comparisons?

Or if the 1TB drives are cheaper than the 2TB, get two and Raid 0 them :)

I'm just asking for speed differences, not advice on what to purchase. Even if I was, RAID would cost about $80 more.

I'd figure it depends on the drive. About a year and a half ago when I was looking to get a new drive, I was looking at getting a Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB, which is a 7200rpm HDD. But then I saw NewEgg had a Samsung EcoGreen F4 2TB 5400rpm drive for just $10 more. Like the OP, I was curious as to how much slower the F4 2TB drive would perform than the faster-spinning F3 1TB. However, based on a couple of user benchmarks I found online (I'm thinking possibly HardForum, but I could be mistaken) showed the two drives performed virtually identical. I believe the reason was the two drives have the same number of platters, but the F4's are twice as dense, IIRC. So I went ahead and bought the F4 and have been quite happy with it (I've been using it as my primary boot drive without any complaints). In fact, I just bought a second one to use as a backup drive to replace my old 500GB RAID0 array.

But yeah, I'd say it depends largely on the drives in question. :)

Thank you, so far you are the only one to actually give an answer to my question!

#12 I am Reid

I am Reid

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 03-November 05
  • Location: Columbus, Ohio

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:32

RPM abbrev Rotation Per Minute

so if the spindle rotate faster, the faster it is to fetch data.. I am not sure if the 64Mb cache make a difference compared to 32MB


but if they use the same amount of platters the 1tb drive has the same amount of information in half the space so less work to fetch the data, and the RPMs of the other drive isnt twice that of the smaller drive.

#13 Muhammad Farrukh

Muhammad Farrukh

    The End is Nigh

  • Joined: 15-August 11

Posted 19 March 2012 - 17:35

Although, depending on the drive, it might not be the most horrible thing in the world, either (I'll get to that in a second). It's just that going 5400, when better drives are available for very little more money, isn't exactly smart. The hard drive is the slowest part of the system. When you go on a walk with a dog on a leash, the harddrive is the kind of dog that will sit there and resist you ever step of the way. And it's a big dog. It WILL slow your journey down...

Throw a 5400 in your own home system, then a 7200. Compare notes. Regardless of theory and ms calculations, 7200 is NOTICABLY faster for just ONE user, isn't it?

Speeding the hard drive up is the first and cheapest thing you can do to make every single part of that system faster.

$3-10 more is not the difference between slow IDE and SCSI (which could cost "a ton" more), but it's the difference between slow IDE and fast IDE. To not spend it is ultimately foolish, a misappropriation of funds (what better do you plan to divert that $3-$10 to????), especially on a server... where TONS of people are using that system, and disparate scripts and daemons are SEEKING files every which way and place on the hard drive.

Now, a quick check of the Rackshack forums show that some of their servers use the 4D040H2 from Maxtor. What a mouthful. 4D040H2. That's their 40gig d540x drive. Probably the fastest of the 5400rpm drives, so in this case, the $3-$10 price cutting measure WON'T kill you. (the brain virus that caused the people who speced this drive, though.. now that might kill you... being penny wise and pound foolish tends to kill businesses equally well as personalCheck out the StorageReview write up of this drive.

http://www.storagere...04G160J8_1.html

Bear in mind that StorageReview went ahead and did what many hosts won't. They turned off Accoustic Management, which makes the seek faster, at the expense of being a little louder. Many drives have this on by default. The drive you get in your server might have this on -- saving the non-existant ears of nearby servers a bit, and slowing you down. They also turned off write verification. I don't know if this comes on as default on the Maxtor drives, but this would speed things up, too -- maybe even double, depending upon the method of write verification the drive used (or maybe no gains if it verifies near simultaneously with the write).

Not just that, but they tested a WHOPPER version of this drive. A 160 gig monster. I think they use 40 gig platters, so that makes for a 4 platter drive (and the 40 gigger, a 1 platter drive). And, if I remember correctly, the bigger drives are these days, the faster they tend to be... because they can try to read and write from all platters simultaneously. 4 platters being faster than 1. It's like a simple form of Raid 0 inside the drive. Now, I'm not saying you'll get a 400% gain due this drive having 4 platters. In fact, I can't say what the gain will be. The 40 might only be 10% slower, in fact. It might be LIKE a simple form of raid inside the drive, but certainly don't get raid like gains -- just mild (but still noticable!) ones.

In any case, the 160gig d540x turned out to be about 18% slower than it's 80 gig (dual platter) d740x (7200rpm) cousin in a web server benchmark.

If you look at the logs of a web server running vbulletin, you'll definitely see what a drag the hard drive is (at any speed) during busy times. An 18% improvement is a welcome one, especially at $3-$10.

Oh, sure, more money can get you a nice SCSI RAID setup, and give you mega-performance for mega-bucks. But 18% $3-$10 is pretty darned compelling, too.

Keep in mind that not all RS servers even use the d540x. When searching the archives, I saw some other brands mentioned. So depending on what they bought and what's available, you might not even be lucky enough to get this particular model of drive.

Ultimately, be careful of being penny wise, pound foolish -- and be careful of the people you work with being that way, too. Your life is short enough without that kind of unwisdom, within yourself or those you work/associate with, reducing the quality of that already short life.



#14 Salty Wagyu

Salty Wagyu

    moo

  • Joined: 04-April 08
  • Location: ConDem Nation

Posted 19 March 2012 - 18:05

RPMs isn't everything. Platter size contributes a lot to how fast it will read data at. There is one site I know of that has built up a database of platter sizes: http://rml527.blogspot.co.uk/

Saying that, my 2TB WD Green 5400rpm which has 667GB platters is almost as fast as my 1TB Spinpoint F3 7200rpm which has 500GB platters; 15MB/sec difference give or take.

#15 OP mikeyx12

mikeyx12

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 07-December 05

Posted 19 March 2012 - 18:09

but if they use the same amount of platters the 1tb drive has the same amount of information in half the space so less work to fetch the data, and the RPMs of the other drive isnt twice that of the smaller drive.

What the? :s

I don't know where to start... lol. The 1TB wouldn't have the same amount of information in half the space - it would have half the information in the same space. The "other drive" is the 2TB one which is slower (5400rpm) so of course it doesn't have twice the RPM as the 7200rpm 1TB... :/


Thanks for that - but unfortunately it's 10 years old, doesn't take into account the cache and it's about 4 platters vs. 1, whereas in this case it would be 3 vs. 2.


RPMs isn't everything. Platter size contributes a lot to how fast it will read data at.

Exactly why I posted this question. Many of the other replies seem to only be taking into account RPM. The 1TB would be 2x 500GB platters and the 2TB with 3x 667GB.

Thanks for the link.