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

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by JC, Apr 13, 2007.

  1. JC

    JC Guest

    Are these drives ok? I need a new one for my laptop and this fits my
    price range.
    JC, Apr 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JC

    jasen Guest

    On 2007-04-13, JC <> wrote:
    > Are these drives ok? I need a new one for my laptop and this fits my
    > price range.


    It's a long time (decades) since I've heard anything bad about Seagate
    drives, that said noone can predict the future.

    Bye.
    Jasen
    jasen, Apr 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JC

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Are these drives ok? I need a new one for my laptop and this fits my
    > price range.


    For a wee bit more $$ and a wee bit less space, you could get a 100Gb
    7200rpm drive.

    --
    Duncan
    Dave Doe, Apr 14, 2007
    #3
  4. JC

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > Are these drives ok? I need a new one for my laptop and this fits my
    > > price range.

    >
    > For a wee bit more $$ and a wee bit less space, you could get a 100Gb
    > 7200rpm drive.


    It's not always a good idea to put a 7,200rpm drive in a laptop. Maybe OK if
    you've used it for a while and it has *zero* heat problems or hot-spots. I'd
    still think twice about it if the original drive wasn't 7,200.

    There's a reason that OEMs don't often put then in the laptops. As they'd
    improve the performance of their laptops quite a bit I'd say it's a
    compelling reason. Heat generation. It seems that most of the 7,200rpm 2.5"
    drives are destined for use in the small USB enclosures where heat isn't
    such an issue.

    Personally I'd be inclined to go with the 5,400 rpm drive.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Apr 14, 2007
    #4
  5. JC

    B Campbell Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:46203f3c$...
    > ... I'd still think twice about it if the original drive wasn't 7,200.
    > ...


    Maybe think thrice. 7,200rpm 2.5in drives (eg Hitachi 7K100) are more
    efficient than old slower drives. The higher bit density & rotation speed
    suggests more data written/retrieved for same total energy use (& thus heat
    dissipated) over a session, and they are generally more power efficient. The
    spin-up current may be slightly higher. Check the full power specs against
    your current drive, maybe especially "active idle". I suspect for "ordinary"
    laptop use 7,200rpm would be superior in performance (notably) and energy
    consumption.
    B Campbell, Apr 15, 2007
    #5
  6. JC

    ~misfit~ Guest

    B Campbell wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:46203f3c$...
    > > ... I'd still think twice about it if the original drive wasn't
    > > 7,200. ...

    >
    > Maybe think thrice. 7,200rpm 2.5in drives (eg Hitachi 7K100) are more
    > efficient than old slower drives.


    Older? Slower? Care to quantify these? I don't think he's talking about a
    486 laptop.

    Generally newer HDDs will be more efficient. However, we're talking very
    small percentages per "generation".

    > The higher bit density & rotation
    > speed suggests more data written/retrieved for same total energy use
    > (& thus heat dissipated)


    Cough<bullshit>cough.

    > over a session, and they are generally more
    > power efficient. The spin-up current may be slightly higher. Check
    > the full power specs against your current drive, maybe especially
    > "active idle". I suspect for "ordinary" laptop use 7,200rpm would be
    > superior in performance (notably) and energy consumption.


    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.

    Rule of thumb with laptops is to replace HDDs with another of similar speed.
    Desktops are a different story as you can cool them.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Apr 15, 2007
    #6
  7. JC

    thingy Guest

    jasen wrote:
    > On 2007-04-13, JC <> wrote:
    >> Are these drives ok? I need a new one for my laptop and this fits my
    >> price range.

    >
    > It's a long time (decades) since I've heard anything bad about Seagate
    > drives, that said noone can predict the future.
    >
    > Bye.
    > Jasen


    I agree....occasionally a manufacturer will bring out a dog of a series
    of drives, maxtor, seagate and IBM have all had such fiascos......These
    days bad reports get out a lot quicker on the Internet but sometimes it
    is a year or two before they happen as a bad batch of drives do not
    necessarily fail in the first week......(Maxtor's did....)....

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Apr 15, 2007
    #7
  8. JC

    thingy Guest

    JC wrote:
    > Are these drives ok? I need a new one for my laptop and this fits my
    > price range.
    >


    While the performance would be good watch the heat output, one good way
    is to compare the amperage demands of the drive. If these are
    significantly higher than the original, think twice as, 1) The battery
    will drain quicker, this may or may not be an issue for you. 2) Getting
    rid of the heat, laptops can be hot little things, a "good" make such as
    say a toshiba may survive this better than a cheapo.....but there is no
    way to quantify this.....

    If it is significantly higher in capacity you may need to Bios flash,
    which could wipe the laptop....rare these days, but...

    Saying that I upgraded my old laptop to 30gig (from 4gig) and it is a
    lot faster, and now has usable space...

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Apr 15, 2007
    #8
  9. JC

    impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > 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/articles/200511/notebook_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.
    impossible, Apr 17, 2007
    #9
  10. JC

    ~misfit~ Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > >
    > > 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/articles/200511/notebook_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)

    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.

    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/products/laptops/momentus/momentus_7200.2/

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Apr 17, 2007
    #10
  11. JC

    impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> >
    >> > 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/articles/200511/notebook_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/products/laptops/momentus/momentus_7200.2/
    >
    impossible, Apr 17, 2007
    #11
  12. JC

    ~misfit~ Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > impossible wrote:
    > > > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > 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/articles/200511/notebook_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/products/laptops/momentus/momentus_7200.2/
    ~misfit~, Apr 17, 2007
    #12
  13. JC

    impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > impossible wrote:
    >> > > "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    >> > > news:...
    >> > >
    >> > > >
    >> > > > 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/articles/200511/notebook_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.
    impossible, Apr 18, 2007
    #13
  14. JC

    Guest

    On Apr 13, 10:40 pm, "~misfit~" <> 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 $$$.
    , Apr 20, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Seagate 120GB Momentus 5400.2 PATA Notebook Hard Disk

    Silverstrand, Jul 28, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    916
    Silverstrand
    Jul 28, 2005
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    712
    Silverstrand
    Aug 8, 2005
  3. Silverstrand

    Seagate Momentus 120GB @ Viperlair

    Silverstrand, Sep 7, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    618
    Silverstrand
    Sep 7, 2005
  4. Silverstrand

    160GB Seagate Momentus 5400.3 2.5" Hard Drive

    Silverstrand, Jan 31, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    688
    Silverstrand
    Jan 31, 2006
  5. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    617
    Silverstrand
    Feb 25, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page