I put in a bid for a HP dc7900 SFF in our work clearout and got it. Intel QC9550 CPU, 4GB DDR2-800 memory, 500GB 7,200 NCQ HDD, DVD-RW, Vista Home Pemium. I'll get an upgrade to W7 but thinking of changing the HDD for a 10,000 RPM version. Any idea on the perf differential?
7,200 RPM HDD or 10,000 RPM?
- Thread starter sprintman
- Start date
- Status
I use a 10k Velociraptor as my main drive, and I def noticed the increase in speed over the 7200 it replaced. If you already have a serviceable 7200 it is probably a waste of money.
What helps more is superfetch.
Newegg has a ton of reviews.
What helps more is superfetch.
Newegg has a ton of reviews.
10k rpm hdds are small, but you can simply use the 7200 for storage.
You might consider an SSD.
You might consider an SSD.
For a home PC running Windows 7, you won't notice all that much difference with a single drive. If you used RAID-0 in a two drive array, the differences between running two 10K vs two 7200rpm drives would be more substantial.
Not worth it IMO. Is the 500GB drive a .12 series Seagate or a WD? ...or some other brand?
Not worth it IMO. Is the 500GB drive a .12 series Seagate or a WD? ...or some other brand?
A family member of mine uses the 10K Velociraptor for CAD work ... and for loading large files (and lots of uncached different ones) it is worth it. But I would heartily recommend the Western Digital Black Caviar - I have the 640GB. Newegg users gave it on average 5 stars.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136319
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136319
10K drives are extremely overpriced.
and they dont improve on transfer rate over a modern 500GB/platter drive ..just latency/access speed
they are also on average about 5x as expensive per MB or more.
SSD's are best but the price reminds me of HDD's in 2000.. we got a few years to go before I'll fork out for a SSD.
I would suggest a WD Black or a seagate 7200.12 series.
I have 3 seagate 7200.12 500GB drives in a raid and it reaches 400+ MB/SEC
so to summarize my opinion..
raptors are about 2x the price they should be. for minimal.. in most cases performance gain.
Did I mention my 3 drive raid array was cheaper than a raptor?
and yes I keep a backup weekly.
and they dont improve on transfer rate over a modern 500GB/platter drive ..just latency/access speed
they are also on average about 5x as expensive per MB or more.
SSD's are best but the price reminds me of HDD's in 2000.. we got a few years to go before I'll fork out for a SSD.
I would suggest a WD Black or a seagate 7200.12 series.
I have 3 seagate 7200.12 500GB drives in a raid and it reaches 400+ MB/SEC
so to summarize my opinion..
raptors are about 2x the price they should be. for minimal.. in most cases performance gain.
Did I mention my 3 drive raid array was cheaper than a raptor?
and yes I keep a backup weekly.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rand
I would suggest a WD Black or a seagate 7200.12 series.
How does something like the Hitachi 7K1000.B HD31000 compare to those you listed?
I would suggest a WD Black or a seagate 7200.12 series.
How does something like the Hitachi 7K1000.B HD31000 compare to those you listed?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
I think a 10k drive will also be a bottleneck, just not as bad. Its not like it is going to be orders of magnitude better, but will help. Not sure if they are worth the money.
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
I think a 10k drive will also be a bottleneck, just not as bad. Its not like it is going to be orders of magnitude better, but will help. Not sure if they are worth the money.
10k rpm drive takes a lot of power, and generates lots of heat, so I won't recommend it for SFF unless you can make sure the air flow is sufficient.
SSD is still very expensive, but if you need high I/O and small size, they are not bad.
What are you trying to achieve? are there any apps that's bottleneck right now? If not I'd leave it alone with a 7200rpm.
SSD is still very expensive, but if you need high I/O and small size, they are not bad.
What are you trying to achieve? are there any apps that's bottleneck right now? If not I'd leave it alone with a 7200rpm.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
10k rpm drive takes a lot of power, and generates lots of heat, so I won't recommend it for SFF unless you can make sure the air flow is sufficient.
Not much more than a 7200, actually. I know the difference used to be huge but not any more.
10k rpm drive takes a lot of power, and generates lots of heat, so I won't recommend it for SFF unless you can make sure the air flow is sufficient.
Not much more than a 7200, actually. I know the difference used to be huge but not any more.
HP don't say what drive brand. I'll see when it arrives. 150GB Velociraptor will be A$210 or abouts if I want one. Good replies...s
I have an 80GB 10K RPM SCSI drive. It is slower (transfer-rate wise) than a modern 7200RPM drive which has fewer platters and store more data per platter.
Ordered Velociraptor 300GB 10K. CPU and memory are fast so might as well get a fast HDD for W7. Now just have to work out how to get to W7 Pro from Vista Home Premium.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: sprintman
Ordered Velociraptor 300GB 10K. CPU and memory are fast so might as well get a fast HDD for W7. Now just have to work out how to get to W7 Pro from Vista Home Premium.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/har...e-review-7.html
You may find it comical, but the 2TB Caviar Black is actually faster than the Velociraptor.
Ordered Velociraptor 300GB 10K. CPU and memory are fast so might as well get a fast HDD for W7. Now just have to work out how to get to W7 Pro from Vista Home Premium.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/har...e-review-7.html
You may find it comical, but the 2TB Caviar Black is actually faster than the Velociraptor.
If you want fast, THIS is what you are after: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233087
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
+1
Originally Posted By: tmorris1
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
I think a 10k drive will also be a bottleneck, just not as bad. Its not like it is going to be orders of magnitude better, but will help. Not sure if they are worth the money.
My brand new W7 system (Thinkpad SL410) with a T5870 Centrino/Core2Duo processor and 3GB has a 7200rpm harddrive.
The Windows Experience Performance Index gives a 5.1 to the CPU and Memory, and a 5.8 to the HDD! Wouldn't this mean the HDD is NOT the bottleneck ? Keep in mind this is a laptop hdd spinning at 7200rpm and not a desktop hdd (hint
latter size).
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
+1
Originally Posted By: tmorris1
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
I think a 10k drive will also be a bottleneck, just not as bad. Its not like it is going to be orders of magnitude better, but will help. Not sure if they are worth the money.
My brand new W7 system (Thinkpad SL410) with a T5870 Centrino/Core2Duo processor and 3GB has a 7200rpm harddrive.
The Windows Experience Performance Index gives a 5.1 to the CPU and Memory, and a 5.8 to the HDD! Wouldn't this mean the HDD is NOT the bottleneck ? Keep in mind this is a laptop hdd spinning at 7200rpm and not a desktop hdd (hint
latter size).
Originally Posted By: youdontwannaknow
Keep in mind this is a laptop hdd spinning at 7200rpm and not a desktop hdd (hintlatter size).
That makes a HUGE difference. bits per second that the head pick up is going to be a lot more at the outer edge of the desktop HD than a laptop HD. To make up for it, the rpm needs to be a fraction bigger (3.5/2.5 = 1.4x), but the latency due to seek will reduce.
Keep in mind this is a laptop hdd spinning at 7200rpm and not a desktop hdd (hint
latter size).That makes a HUGE difference. bits per second that the head pick up is going to be a lot more at the outer edge of the desktop HD than a laptop HD. To make up for it, the rpm needs to be a fraction bigger (3.5/2.5 = 1.4x), but the latency due to seek will reduce.
Originally Posted By: youdontwannaknow
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
+1
Originally Posted By: tmorris1
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
I think a 10k drive will also be a bottleneck, just not as bad. Its not like it is going to be orders of magnitude better, but will help. Not sure if they are worth the money.
My brand new W7 system (Thinkpad SL410) with a T5870 Centrino/Core2Duo processor and 3GB has a 7200rpm harddrive.
The Windows Experience Performance Index gives a 5.1 to the CPU and Memory, and a 5.8 to the HDD! Wouldn't this mean the HDD is NOT the bottleneck ? Keep in mind this is a laptop hdd spinning at 7200rpm and not a desktop hdd (hintlatter size).
The Windows Experience rating has nothing to do with your bottleneck. The rating is only a comparison within the category. In other words a CPU rating of 5 has nothing to do with a HDD rating of 5 and can't be compared.
Pretty much any CPU is going to be able to handle even the fastest HD.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
+1
Originally Posted By: tmorris1
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
A 7200 RPM hard drive is a bottleneck on 99% of systems I see. If you can, get the 10k for sure.
I think a 10k drive will also be a bottleneck, just not as bad. Its not like it is going to be orders of magnitude better, but will help. Not sure if they are worth the money.
My brand new W7 system (Thinkpad SL410) with a T5870 Centrino/Core2Duo processor and 3GB has a 7200rpm harddrive.
The Windows Experience Performance Index gives a 5.1 to the CPU and Memory, and a 5.8 to the HDD! Wouldn't this mean the HDD is NOT the bottleneck ? Keep in mind this is a laptop hdd spinning at 7200rpm and not a desktop hdd (hint
latter size).The Windows Experience rating has nothing to do with your bottleneck. The rating is only a comparison within the category. In other words a CPU rating of 5 has nothing to do with a HDD rating of 5 and can't be compared.
Pretty much any CPU is going to be able to handle even the fastest HD.
- Status
