I don't see how there couldn't be a performance difference. They are different RPM. While a lot of it comes down to bus speed, and I don't know much about this, it stands to reason that the faster spinning HD will outperform a slower spinning one.
It stands to reason but not reality
Density accounts for the largest amount of speed. A 160 GB drive will be 60% faster than a 100 GB drive, because in turning the same amount, it reads 60% more data.
So a 160 GB 5.4k drive is 120% faster than a 100 GB 7.2k drive. (160% x (5.4/7.2))
Interesting read OfficerDigby. I learned a lot with that, so I appreciate your pointing it out to me. It appears that all is well between the different RPM's even if the different manufacturers report their data in different ways, as cited in the link.
The problems laptop users face are many: an expansive iTunes library - to include downloads of TV shows, several thousand photos at high megapixel rates, movies and clips numbering well above 50 to 100, if not more, just to name a few. Add in the apps we use to make them all work, and a laptop hard drive simply can't store it because of their limitations. I'm no fan of the smaller hard drives because of their capacity limits.
The sad thing is that Apple doesn't seem to care about people using high definition camcorders, 8MP cameras (or higher), or people who download a lot from the iTunes music store in the form of songs and tv shows. They apparently slept through the meeting when it was discussed that their ultra-slim laptops can't effectively store the media people acquire these days, and lets face it, lugging around an iMac just isn't going to cut it. Perhaps they get bought off by the external hard drive manufacturers like car companies get paid off by Big Oil to keep their MPG down. Whatever it is, the storage just isn't enough when considering what people are using their Pro models for. Everything about my MBP is great aside from the dinky hard drive. That simply MUST change, and not in a little way.
I loved the IBM and PPC technology, but I love being able to drop the hook into the raging waters of this AMD / Intel torrent more!
Not to mention now, more than ever before, the GPU wars heating up with AMD buying ATI. Apple is mainstream now, able to take advantage of the madness of the PC world CPU/ GPU/ Physix product cycles and competition. Intel and their Integrated Graphics probably saved Apple quite a bit of R&D and cost in having a total package. Intel and high-end nVidia Integrated may be really quite exciting. Think Intel and high-end multicore nVidia Integrated
NVidia make motherboard chipsets that are direct, superior competition to Intel's chipsets. That's why Intel has been all pal-y with ATI.
Also, 'Integrated' graphics are never good. Integrated in the sense of leaching off the main memory, and leaning on the processor for its shortcomings.
NVidia make motherboard chipsets that are direct, superior competition to Intel's chipsets. That's why Intel has been all pal-y with ATI.
Yeah, I think hardware enthusiasts and people-in-the-know are looking forward to nVidia's motherboard chipsets for Conroe. Throw in a good company like Asus and you've got nice silent motherboards for Conroe, ready to rock and roll.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Also, 'Integrated' graphics are never good. Integrated in the sense of leaching off the main memory, and leaning on the processor for its shortcomings.
Good enough for Apple base models though. Good enough for 50% of the market. Intel is trying hard to improve their integrated graphics. I don't know how it's going to stack up against the AMD-ATI mobo chipsets with ATI integrated graphics.
Hence the call for Intel to get more cozy with nVidia. Eliminate some redundancy, bring on some synergy, hold the market lead in CPUs, Chipsets, GPUS and Integrated Graphics.
AMD has dropped prices quite a bit on AthlonX2s. Given the rejigging (new motherboards) for people to get onto Core2, at least AMD has a nice revenue stream from current shipments and people upgrading to AMD dualcores (since pricing will get more and more attractive)... Hence AMD now pushing "performance/price"
Just some thoughts about AMD revenue which should be "okay" for the next 6months.
Yeah, not to mention AMD will beat intel to "4" cores on a consumer mobo... a multitaskers dream (and waste of money, IMHO, but whatever...) via dual, dual-core chips that aren't memory starved like intel's 4-core solution will be.
E6700 4 MB L2\t2.66 GHz\t1066 MHz - now that would be a nice upgrade from a g4 1.25g?
For a Universal app, hopefully one that's multicore-aware, or just Apple's suite of software in OS X, dude, the Conroe E6700 will TOTALLY rock. Totally. 2GB of RAM to go with it will be awesome too. And, you can run Bootcamp WinXP2 at real top speeds.
But that's a Conroe. Just wait for Xeon Woodcrests in the Mac Pro.... BRING IT ON!!!!
Yeh your right, i thought that was Merom (Core 2 Duo - for laptops), but i checked closer - theyve put the desktop (Conroe) under laptop chips?, i should have suspected that Merom tops out @ 2.33G.
I was referring to my trusty little PB Al 1.25G. \
Hypothetically, you could put a Conroe in a notebook. I've heard that some companies plan to do it. I've seen P4 notebooks - frakking huge and hot, and Conroe's cooler than more Netburst stuff. It wouldn't fit in a MBP though, but it'd fit in a thick 17 or 19 inch notebook. Or so I've heard.
Hypothetically, you could put a Conroe in a notebook. I've heard that some companies plan to do it. I've seen P4 notebooks - frakking huge and hot, and Conroe's cooler than more Netburst stuff. It wouldn't fit in a MBP though, but it'd fit in a thick 17 or 19 inch notebook. Or so I've heard.
I doubt Apple will go that route. The Merom will take over the notebook line as it should and the Conroe will hit up the low end Mac Pro and the iMac (hopefully).
Comments
Originally posted by Brian Green
JeffDM,
I don't see how there couldn't be a performance difference. They are different RPM. While a lot of it comes down to bus speed, and I don't know much about this, it stands to reason that the faster spinning HD will outperform a slower spinning one.
It stands to reason but not reality
Density accounts for the largest amount of speed. A 160 GB drive will be 60% faster than a 100 GB drive, because in turning the same amount, it reads 60% more data.
So a 160 GB 5.4k drive is 120% faster than a 100 GB 7.2k drive. (160% x (5.4/7.2))
Originally posted by Brian Green
Well you two sold me on it. When I get back to the States a 160 GB hard drive is dropping into my MBP. I still wish there were more space though.
you might be interested in these comparisons..
http://tinyurl.com/nnmuj
The problems laptop users face are many: an expansive iTunes library - to include downloads of TV shows, several thousand photos at high megapixel rates, movies and clips numbering well above 50 to 100, if not more, just to name a few. Add in the apps we use to make them all work, and a laptop hard drive simply can't store it because of their limitations. I'm no fan of the smaller hard drives because of their capacity limits.
The sad thing is that Apple doesn't seem to care about people using high definition camcorders, 8MP cameras (or higher), or people who download a lot from the iTunes music store in the form of songs and tv shows. They apparently slept through the meeting when it was discussed that their ultra-slim laptops can't effectively store the media people acquire these days, and lets face it, lugging around an iMac just isn't going to cut it. Perhaps they get bought off by the external hard drive manufacturers like car companies get paid off by Big Oil to keep their MPG down. Whatever it is, the storage just isn't enough when considering what people are using their Pro models for. Everything about my MBP is great aside from the dinky hard drive. That simply MUST change, and not in a little way.
Sweet competition to ship chips quicker and cheaper!
I loved the IBM and PPC technology, but I love being able to drop the hook into the raging waters of this AMD / Intel torrent more!
_____________
Sorry, not part of that current HD thread... just commenting on the article...
_____________
I loved the IBM and PPC technology, but I love being able to drop the hook into the raging waters of this AMD / Intel torrent more!
Not to mention now, more than ever before, the GPU wars heating up with AMD buying ATI. Apple is mainstream now, able to take advantage of the madness of the PC world CPU/ GPU/ Physix product cycles and competition. Intel and their Integrated Graphics probably saved Apple quite a bit of R&D and cost in having a total package. Intel and high-end nVidia Integrated may be really quite exciting. Think Intel and high-end multicore nVidia Integrated
Also, 'Integrated' graphics are never good. Integrated in the sense of leaching off the main memory, and leaning on the processor for its shortcomings.
NVidia make motherboard chipsets that are direct, superior competition to Intel's chipsets. That's why Intel has been all pal-y with ATI.
Yeah, I think hardware enthusiasts and people-in-the-know are looking forward to nVidia's motherboard chipsets for Conroe. Throw in a good company like Asus and you've got nice silent motherboards for Conroe, ready to rock and roll.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Also, 'Integrated' graphics are never good. Integrated in the sense of leaching off the main memory, and leaning on the processor for its shortcomings.
Good enough for Apple base models though. Good enough for 50% of the market. Intel is trying hard to improve their integrated graphics. I don't know how it's going to stack up against the AMD-ATI mobo chipsets with ATI integrated graphics.
Hence the call for Intel to get more cozy with nVidia. Eliminate some redundancy, bring on some synergy, hold the market lead in CPUs, Chipsets, GPUS and Integrated Graphics.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=29466
http://www.jonpeddie.com/about/press...tch_Q105.shtml
http://www.electronicstalk.com/news/jop/jop101.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1922755,00.asp
Just some thoughts about AMD revenue which should be "okay" for the next 6months.
And as for intel's share of integrated graphics shrinking, well... good! IIG are a flaming pile of crap, and need some serious spicing up, stat.
Originally posted by mwswami
The details of the Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme are now available on Intel.com.
E6700 4 MB L2\t2.66 GHz\t1066 MHz - now that would be a nice upgrade from a g4 1.25g?
E6700 4 MB L2\t2.66 GHz\t1066 MHz - now that would be a nice upgrade from a g4 1.25g?
For a Universal app, hopefully one that's multicore-aware, or just Apple's suite of software in OS X, dude, the Conroe E6700 will TOTALLY rock. Totally.
Originally posted by sunilraman
But that's a Conroe. Just wait for Xeon Woodcrests in the Mac Pro.... BRING IT ON!!!!
Yeh your right, i thought that was Merom (Core 2 Duo - for laptops), but i checked closer - theyve put the desktop (Conroe) under laptop chips?, i should have suspected that Merom tops out @ 2.33G.
I was referring to my trusty little PB Al 1.25G.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Hypothetically, you could put a Conroe in a notebook. I've heard that some companies plan to do it. I've seen P4 notebooks - frakking huge and hot, and Conroe's cooler than more Netburst stuff. It wouldn't fit in a MBP though, but it'd fit in a thick 17 or 19 inch notebook. Or so I've heard.
I doubt Apple will go that route. The Merom will take over the notebook line as it should and the Conroe will hit up the low end Mac Pro and the iMac (hopefully).