Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > SEAGATE 2.5" Momentus HDD 120GB 5400.3rpm 8MB CACHE

Reply
Thread Tools

SEAGATE 2.5" Momentus HDD 120GB 5400.3rpm 8MB CACHE

 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2007
"~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> >
>> > Yes, notably superior in performance.
>> >
>> > However, the rest of your post is twaddle. All things being equal
>> > (ie. Two modern drives, similar bearings...) it takes more energy
>> > to
>> > maintain a speed of 7,200rpm than it does 5,400rpm, around 50%
>> > more
>> > energy. That energy is converted to heat. 50% more heat. In the
>> > depths of a laptop, not having an easy way to escape, draining
>> > the
>> > battery.

>>
>> But then all things are NOT equal. New drives, new technologies,
>> different equations. Seen this benchmark comparison?
>>
>> http://www.storagereview.com/article...otebook_7.html
>>
>> Apparently the 7200 rpm Seagate consumes about 15% more power than
>> its
>> 5400 rpm cousin at idle (but still less than 1 watt). Under full
>> load,
>> the difference is about 11%. And at startup from idle, when the
>> power
>> demand peaks, the 7200rpm version actually consumes about 5% less
>> than
>> the 5400.
>>
>> The net effect then of an upgrade like this is likely to be very
>> small
>> . If you're a hard-core gamer running all-out 24/7 on battery, then
>> you're looking at a steady 0.42 watts of extra load , and so you
>> might
>> need to plug in a little more often. More conventional users will
>> of
>> course see most of that extra load only intermittently -- and
>> losses
>> there will probably be offset by the simple fact that the drive is
>> faster and so performing everyday tasks more efficiently.
>>
>> > Rule of thumb with laptops is to replace HDDs with another of
>> > similar speed. Desktops are a different story as you can cool
>> > them.

>>
>> In the range of extra power we're actually talking about here, I
>> can't
>> see heat dissipation being an issue at all.

>
> Thanks for the URL, interesting to know, even if it's from 2005 and
> is a generation behind current tech. (5400.2 and 7200.1)
>


And your back-of-the-envelop power calcs referred to what generation
exactly?

> Something that could influence things is the 5400.3 series of drives
> have perpendicular data storage for a considerably higher areal
> density. As drive /speed/ is usually a factor of rpm, areal density
> and cache size the drive mentioned in the subject line could well
> outperform a 7,200 drive that *wasn't* perpendicular.
>


Could be. But it would be nice to see a benchmark. Using Seagate's own
spec sheets as a reference, I'd say you're probably wrong. The
Momentus 5400.3 has a transfer rate of 44 Mbytes/sec -- the 7200.2 is
59. Seek times are 12.5 msec and 11 msec, respectively. Latency is
5.6 msec and 4.17 msec.

> From what I can tell, having just spent a fair while at Seagate's
> site, the 7,200rpm 2.5" drive isn't available with perpendicular
> technology. (The .3 series) In fact, Seagate seem to be aiming the
> 7,200rpm drives *away* from the laptop market. This from their
> Momentus 7200.2 page:
>
> "Seagate® Momentus® 7200.2 hard drives provide the optimum
> combination of performance, capacity and mobility in a 2.5-inch form
> factor. They are also a good fit in certain non-PC applications,
> including external storage, copiers/printers and entry-level blade
> servers."
>
> http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/pro...mentus_7200.2/
>




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2007
impossible wrote:
> "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > impossible wrote:
> > > "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, notably superior in performance.
> > > >
> > > > However, the rest of your post is twaddle. All things being
> > > > equal (ie. Two modern drives, similar bearings...) it takes
> > > > more energy to
> > > > maintain a speed of 7,200rpm than it does 5,400rpm, around 50%
> > > > more
> > > > energy. That energy is converted to heat. 50% more heat. In the
> > > > depths of a laptop, not having an easy way to escape, draining
> > > > the
> > > > battery.
> > >
> > > But then all things are NOT equal. New drives, new technologies,
> > > different equations. Seen this benchmark comparison?
> > >
> > > http://www.storagereview.com/article...otebook_7.html
> > >
> > > Apparently the 7200 rpm Seagate consumes about 15% more power than
> > > its
> > > 5400 rpm cousin at idle (but still less than 1 watt). Under full
> > > load,
> > > the difference is about 11%. And at startup from idle, when the
> > > power
> > > demand peaks, the 7200rpm version actually consumes about 5% less
> > > than
> > > the 5400.
> > >
> > > The net effect then of an upgrade like this is likely to be very
> > > small
> > > . If you're a hard-core gamer running all-out 24/7 on battery,
> > > then you're looking at a steady 0.42 watts of extra load , and so
> > > you might
> > > need to plug in a little more often. More conventional users will
> > > of
> > > course see most of that extra load only intermittently -- and
> > > losses
> > > there will probably be offset by the simple fact that the drive is
> > > faster and so performing everyday tasks more efficiently.
> > >
> > > > Rule of thumb with laptops is to replace HDDs with another of
> > > > similar speed. Desktops are a different story as you can cool
> > > > them.
> > >
> > > In the range of extra power we're actually talking about here, I
> > > can't
> > > see heat dissipation being an issue at all.

> >
> > Thanks for the URL, interesting to know, even if it's from 2005 and
> > is a generation behind current tech. (5400.2 and 7200.1)
> >

>
> And your back-of-the-envelop power calcs referred to what generation
> exactly?


Back of an envelope? I'll have you know I did those all in my head! <g>

> > Something that could influence things is the 5400.3 series of drives
> > have perpendicular data storage for a considerably higher areal
> > density. As drive /speed/ is usually a factor of rpm, areal density
> > and cache size the drive mentioned in the subject line could well
> > outperform a 7,200 drive that *wasn't* perpendicular.
> >

>
> Could be. But it would be nice to see a benchmark. Using Seagate's own
> spec sheets as a reference, I'd say you're probably wrong. The
> Momentus 5400.3 has a transfer rate of 44 Mbytes/sec -- the 7200.2 is
> 59. Seek times are 12.5 msec and 11 msec, respectively. Latency is
> 5.6 msec and 4.17 msec.


Sure, they could be faster. They could be hotter too. In the words of the
philosopher Beth Gibbons "You don't get something for nothing".
--
Shaun.

> > From what I can tell, having just spent a fair while at Seagate's
> > site, the 7,200rpm 2.5" drive isn't available with perpendicular
> > technology. (The .3 series) In fact, Seagate seem to be aiming the
> > 7,200rpm drives *away* from the laptop market. This from their
> > Momentus 7200.2 page:
> >
> > "Seagate® Momentus® 7200.2 hard drives provide the optimum
> > combination of performance, capacity and mobility in a 2.5-inch form
> > factor. They are also a good fit in certain non-PC applications,
> > including external storage, copiers/printers and entry-level blade
> > servers."
> >
> > http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/pro...mentus_7200.2/




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2007
"~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > impossible wrote:
>> > > "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, notably superior in performance.
>> > > >
>> > > > However, the rest of your post is twaddle. All things being
>> > > > equal (ie. Two modern drives, similar bearings...) it takes
>> > > > more energy to
>> > > > maintain a speed of 7,200rpm than it does 5,400rpm, around
>> > > > 50%
>> > > > more
>> > > > energy. That energy is converted to heat. 50% more heat. In
>> > > > the
>> > > > depths of a laptop, not having an easy way to escape,
>> > > > draining
>> > > > the
>> > > > battery.
>> > >
>> > > But then all things are NOT equal. New drives, new
>> > > technologies,
>> > > different equations. Seen this benchmark comparison?
>> > >
>> > > http://www.storagereview.com/article...otebook_7.html
>> > >
>> > > Apparently the 7200 rpm Seagate consumes about 15% more power
>> > > than
>> > > its
>> > > 5400 rpm cousin at idle (but still less than 1 watt). Under
>> > > full
>> > > load,
>> > > the difference is about 11%. And at startup from idle, when the
>> > > power
>> > > demand peaks, the 7200rpm version actually consumes about 5%
>> > > less
>> > > than
>> > > the 5400.
>> > >
>> > > The net effect then of an upgrade like this is likely to be
>> > > very
>> > > small
>> > > . If you're a hard-core gamer running all-out 24/7 on battery,
>> > > then you're looking at a steady 0.42 watts of extra load , and
>> > > so
>> > > you might
>> > > need to plug in a little more often. More conventional users
>> > > will
>> > > of
>> > > course see most of that extra load only intermittently -- and
>> > > losses
>> > > there will probably be offset by the simple fact that the drive
>> > > is
>> > > faster and so performing everyday tasks more efficiently.
>> > >
>> > > > Rule of thumb with laptops is to replace HDDs with another of
>> > > > similar speed. Desktops are a different story as you can cool
>> > > > them.
>> > >
>> > > In the range of extra power we're actually talking about here,
>> > > I
>> > > can't
>> > > see heat dissipation being an issue at all.
>> >
>> > Thanks for the URL, interesting to know, even if it's from 2005
>> > and
>> > is a generation behind current tech. (5400.2 and 7200.1)
>> >

>>
>> And your back-of-the-envelop power calcs referred to what
>> generation
>> exactly?

>
> Back of an envelope? I'll have you know I did those all in my head!
> <g>
>
>> > Something that could influence things is the 5400.3 series of
>> > drives
>> > have perpendicular data storage for a considerably higher areal
>> > density. As drive /speed/ is usually a factor of rpm, areal
>> > density
>> > and cache size the drive mentioned in the subject line could well
>> > outperform a 7,200 drive that *wasn't* perpendicular.
>> >

>>
>> Could be. But it would be nice to see a benchmark. Using Seagate's
>> own
>> spec sheets as a reference, I'd say you're probably wrong. The
>> Momentus 5400.3 has a transfer rate of 44 Mbytes/sec -- the 7200.2
>> is
>> 59. Seek times are 12.5 msec and 11 msec, respectively. Latency is
>> 5.6 msec and 4.17 msec.

>
> Sure, they could be faster. They could be hotter too. In the words
> of the philosopher Beth Gibbons "You don't get something for
> nothing".
> --
>


True, but 0.42 watts is awfully close.


 
Reply With Quote
 
wadefleming@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2007
On Apr 13, 10:40 pm, "~misfit~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> There's a reason that OEMs don't often put then in the laptops.


Yes, and it is price.

The average user has very little or no need for a 7200rpm drive, hence
the manufacturer has little or no need to spend the extra $$$.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
my laptop sata hdd crahed,can i use seagate portable hdd as laptopsata hdd through some convertors?? ashjas Computer Support 2 03-29-2008 07:24 PM
Seagate Momentus 120GB @ Viperlair Silverstrand Front Page News 0 09-07-2005 02:24 AM
Seagate 120GB Momentus 5400.2 PATA Notebook Hard Disk Review Silverstrand Front Page News 0 08-08-2005 02:57 PM
Seagate 120GB Momentus 5400.2 PATA Notebook Hard Disk Silverstrand Front Page News 0 07-28-2005 04:46 PM
Two types of Seagate 120GB hdd? samg NZ Computing 4 10-12-2003 06:16 AM



Advertisments