80GB 2.5" hard drives.

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
This drive is now available--I believe it is the only 80GB notebook drive currently out:



80.0GB IBM/Hitachi Travelstar 80GN 4200rpm 2048K Buffer 9.5mm UltraSlim.



Any ideas on its performance?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Performance-wise, I'm sure it can't keep up with the 5400 RPM 60 GB Toshiba MK6022GAX with 16 MB cache...
  • Reply 2 of 16
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    what about price?
  • Reply 3 of 16
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Any news on 80 GB 5400 rpm drives?
  • Reply 4 of 16
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Are there more platters on the 80 vs the 60? Wouldn't that increase performance somewhat?
  • Reply 5 of 16
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    Quote:

    Performance-wise, I'm sure it can't keep up with the 5400 RPM 60 GB Toshiba MK6022GAX with 16 MB cache...



    Areal density actually makes more of a difference than seek time (rpm) or insane buffers. There were benchmarks I think on XLR8yourmac that back this up.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,148member
    I, too, am curious about this new notebook drive. I sure could use an 80GB hard drive in my Powerbook with all the MP3s I have. But I would actually favor a drive that may have lesser capacity but better performance. You really notice the 4200 RPM and 2MB of the Fujitsu drive in here already. The length it takes to launch applications and navigate its hard drive is pokey at times.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R

    Areal density actually makes more of a difference than seek time (rpm) or insane buffers. There were benchmarks I think on XLR8yourmac that back this up.



    Platter density makes a difference, but in the context of these two HDDs, not that big a difference. I'm sure somce place will benchmark these two HDDs head-to-head for us...
  • Reply 8 of 16
    Re: Buffers, I've always wondered:



    a) don't modern computers/OSes use system ram for buffering data read from HDs? If so, of what relative importance is a hard drive's buffer size?



    b) w/ a filesystem like HFS+, does it actually make a damn bit of difference? I mean, FSes like XFS use buffers to do 'last-possible-second' writes which speeds up reads/writes substantially by making the written data more contigious/less 'seeky and bursty'. But XFS was built from the ground up to do this. With an architecture like HFS+, surely low-level support for this sort of thing suxxors dramatically?



    Does the buffer get used for filesystem read-ahead? Surely, noone wants constant, 16MB read-ahead?



    What do buffers truly do, in a best case scenario?
  • Reply 9 of 16
    piwozniakpiwozniak Posts: 815member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Performance-wise, I'm sure it can't keep up with the 5400 RPM 60 GB Toshiba MK6022GAX with 16 MB cache...



    Eugene i used both,



    MK4016GAX (same specs as MK6022GAX, except for 40 GB capacity)

    40 GB

    5400 RPM

    16 GB buffer

    12 ms seek time

    Fluid Dynamic Bearings (noise reduction)



    and



    IBM Travelstar 40GNX

    40 GB

    5400 RPM

    12 ms seek time

    8 MB buffer

    'Pixie Dust'



    40GNX beats MK4016GAX, hands down even though it has only half the buffeer size of Toshiba's.



    Plus these toshiba HDs make this greatly annoing rattling noise.



    :-)
  • Reply 10 of 16
    mbezzombezzo Posts: 72member
    Anybody spot any benchmarks on the 80GN yet? I'm very curious as well. I think it's gonna be pretty fast. The Fujitsu drives are as fast, if not faster than the 5400 drives out there because of how dense the data is. At 40gb per platter, the 80GN has to be pretty dense too. Would like to see numbers though...
  • Reply 11 of 16
    mbezzombezzo Posts: 72member
    In case nobody heard, BareFeats has a review of the 80GB Hitachi drive and the new 60 GB GAX Toshiba drive. Worth checking out!
  • Reply 12 of 16
    Thanks, dude.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    bka77bka77 Posts: 331member
    The 80GB drive in the next iPod, and the free space not used for music could be used like a normal external HD.

    That would be nice!
  • Reply 14 of 16
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    The iPod uses 1.8" drives not 2.5" so this drive could not be used in one.



    I do, however, agree that an 80GB iPod would be a sick little piece of equipment.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    bka77bka77 Posts: 331member
    your are right Bancho, and the last thing I want is the iPod getting bigger!
  • Reply 16 of 16
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    I think 40GB would be acceptable for most uses though
Sign In or Register to comment.