Bare Feats compares 7200, 5400 and 4200 HDs in 1.25Ghz Alu15

c-bearc-bear
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Been waiting for this one. Here's the link:



http://barefeats.com/hard34.html



Essentially and predictably, a 7200 beats the 5400, the 5400 beats the 4200. The guys at Bare Feats basically end up suggesting that buyers opt for the cheapest 4200 60GB HD option and putting the money saved towards a 7200 swap.



No glaring differences in battery, heat or noise reported, either, though they admit that this is a subjective observation as they lack the proper tools to objectively test.



It would be greatly appreciated if someone who understands this stuff could translate the implications of these tests for the average user. For instance, ignoring the 7200 option, is the announced 21% speed improvement in the 5400 over the 4200 a valuable upgrade for typical realworld use? Is it worth the $125 (Bare Feats seems to think not)? What, in layman's terms,are the knowledgeable opinions regarding these choices?



Too, that standard Fujitsu 4200 80GB is still being listed as having a 2MB cache, not an 8MB one as some have asserted. Anyone know correct specs?



Thoughts and opinions please.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    patchoulipatchouli Posts: 402member
    According to those who posted the serial# to the Fujitsu Drives in their 15" AlBooks, it's the MHT2080AT model which has an 8MB cache (see spec link below). It doesn't look like Fujitsu makes an 80GB drive with a 2MB Cache. In fact, if you look at Hitachi, Fujitsu and Toshiba's sites, all of their 80GB HDs have 8MB cache as standard. Unless I've overlooked, I can't seem to find ANY 80GB notebook HDs with a 2MB cache.



    http://www.fcpa.fujitsu.com/products...fications.html



    I also would trust anyone else's opinions about HD acoustics. Many bench geeks are immune to such noises that drive people like me insane. The Hitachi drive *IS* more audible than the near silent Fujitsu but a bit more quiet than the clackity clack Toshiba line (which is another manufacturer Apple randomly uses for the PowerBooks, unfortunately).
  • Reply 2 of 8
    c-bearc-bear Posts: 111member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Patchouli

    According to those who posted the serial# to the Fujitsu Drives in their 15" AlBooks, it's the MHT2080AT model which has an 8MB cache (see spec link below). It doesn't look like Fujitsu makes an 80GB drive with a 2MB Cache. In fact, if you look at Hitachi, Fujitsu and Toshiba's sites, all of their 80GB HDs have 8MB cache as standard. Unless I've overlooked, I can't seem to find ANY 80GB notebook HDs with a 2MB cache.



    http://www.fcpa.fujitsu.com/products...fications.html



    Interesting. Your Fujitsu link does say 8MB cache. The Bare Feats link (http://www.fujitsu.ca/products/stora...rformance.html), which I believe is their Canadian site, says 2MB.



    Personally, I hope your link is right.
  • Reply 3 of 8
    patchoulipatchouli Posts: 402member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by C-Bear

    Interesting. Your Fujitsu link does say 8MB cache. The Bare Feats link (http://www.fujitsu.ca/products/stora...rformance.html), which I believe is their Canadian site, says 2MB.



    Personally, I hope your link is right.



    On the page linked below (taken from the same CAN site) it shows the 'MHT2080AT' as 'Coming Soon' so I am thinking that the specs page that Barefeets has linked is describing the 60GB or lower drives which would all have the 2MB Cache.



    http://www.fujitsu.ca/products/stora.../capacity.html
  • Reply 4 of 8
    johnjohn Posts: 99member
    FWIW, my 80GB 4,200 RPM drive is a Hitachi IC25N080ATMR04-0 which has an 8MB buffer according to the specs
  • Reply 5 of 8
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    I take what Barefeats says about everything with a grain of salt.





    I think 5400 would be a good middle ground for a portable hard drive.



    7200 really is only needed unless ur specific work would truly benefit from it. other than that you'll likely rarely see a noticeable difference, especially one that is worth the diference in cost.
  • Reply 6 of 8
    tribalogicaltribalogical Posts: 1,182member
    It could be possible the the *OEM* version of the drive only has a 2Mb cache... heat is an issue when you bump the cache to 8Mb (I know people who have fried their 3.5" FW drives due to a poorly ventilated enclosure -- the 8Mb chache was where most of that heat came from), and we know heat is a "thing" with PBs....



    I'd love to hear from someone who owns one and has opened the thing... how about the Japanese site that recently disassembled a new 15"? Any word from that site on the actual HD specs?



    I'm picking up a 15" this week, with the 5400 in it... best balance all around (price, performance, battery life, etc.), far as I can tell...



    just one opinion



    peace,



    tribalogical
  • Reply 7 of 8
    c-bearc-bear Posts: 111member
    Based on these tests, I'm still wondering if the speed increase of the 5400 translates to noticeable realworld improvement over the 4200.



    Can anyone comment?
  • Reply 8 of 8
    taliesintaliesin Posts: 117member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by C-Bear

    Based on these tests, I'm still wondering if the speed increase of the 5400 translates to noticeable realworld improvement over the 4200.



    Can anyone comment?



    For what it is worth I upgraded my Tibook with a 48g 5400 ibm and noticed absolutely no difference, oh except less battery life. I just ordered my Albook with a cheap 60g and will buy a fast external drive for video work. Just my 2 ¢
Sign In or Register to comment.