5400 rpm is it worth it?



  • Reply 21 of 31
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    Cool, cool, cool. Thanks for posting all that.
  • Reply 22 of 31
    So what is faster the 8mb 40 GB IBM harddrive or the new Fujitsu drive?
  • Reply 23 of 31
    jmpjmp Posts: 31member
    The IBM 40GNX has a max transfer rate of 297Mbits/8=37MB/sec and latency of 5.5ms according to T40GNX_sp11.pdf (IBM spec sheet). Probably in actual use the 8MB cache on the 40GNX would make it considerably faster than the fujitsu with it's 2MB cache. The hardware guys could probably comment on this better than I can. Overall though it seems like the fujitsu drives are a pretty good combination of reasonable speed, small size, and low power consumption. I'm very pleased they're standard instead of build-to-order at increased cost.

    My only concern (for the more technically inclined)-does the extremely high density of data on the Fujitsu MHS 4200 have any bearing on long term reliability of the media? I assume this means the blocks must be much smaller than in previous drives?
  • Reply 24 of 31
    So is the 60GB drive in the new 1GHz Tibook the new Fujitsu one? Hitachi and Toshiba also make 60GB 4200rpm 9.5mm drives as well so it's hard to assume. Anyone know?
  • Reply 25 of 31
    jmpjmp Posts: 31member
    Over on macnn at least two people have posted that their new PB G4's have Fujitsu drives, although they haven't posted the exact model number (seems like they can't get this info from system profiler, or possibly just weren't sure what to post). This is the only 60GB Fujitsu notebook drive I can find any info on. Also based on the rather nice HD benchmarks people are seeing on these, it does seem that the hard drive is faster than a typical 4200 RPM.

    However at least one person (Jayti, an apple employee with a pre-production G4 1GHz) has posted that he has an IBM 60GH in his. This suggests that a 12.5mm height drive is possible.

    Unfortunately this info is spread over several threads in the "powerbook' section at macnn so there's no specific URL or quote.
  • Reply 26 of 31
    what about this drive:

    <a href="http://store.powerbook1.com/mcemob60g.html"; target="_blank">MCE Mobilestor 60G</a>

    It's damn expensive that is!

    But about performance, what do u guys think?

    Is it quiet? fast? durable? (3years warranty so i guess it's pretty durable)
  • Reply 27 of 31
    I think some of the fastest portable drives available come from Toshiba.

    Look at these

    MK4019GAX 40GB

    MK6022GAX 60GB

    They feature 16MB buffers, 5400RPM spindles, just two platters, fluid dynamic bearings(keeps quiet), 9.5mm thin.

    Note that according to the Toshiba website they only claim a benefit of "up to 12%" when using 5400RPM instead of 4200RPM spindle speeds.
  • Reply 28 of 31

    i have used both IBM 40GB GNX model as well as Toshiba 40 GB GAX one.

    Even though Toshiba has 16MB buffer IBM is faster. check out <a href="http://www.barefeats.com"; target="_blank">www.barefeats.com</a> for head to head comparison.

    Both drives utilize fluid bearings, but ibm's drive has also some kind of damper to minimize the noise (you can look it up on their website). It is much more quiet than Toshiba's. I was really supprised. If you are thinking about HD upgrade go for 40GB GNX. It is 9 mm thick and has a 8MB buffer. It also features 'pixiedust' technology which in itself is simply amazing. I would highly recommend to do some reading on it.

    Sorry all i didn't provide more info and no URLs but i have to run..
  • Reply 29 of 31
    The new 4200 rpm drive is faster than the old 5400 rpm drive!!!

    Go to the Macnn.com forums for benchmarks!!!

    The new drive is much better!!!
  • Reply 30 of 31
    I'll vouch for lockmaster here. The new 60GB drive is benching at about 19-23 GB/sec sequential and 10.5-12 GB/sec random (probably depends on how fragmented the drive is) on the macnn forums. The 40GB only seems to have one posted report, about 18.5 GB/sec sequential and 10.5 or 11 random as I recall from someone who noted he ran xBench right after installing a bunch of software so the drive was heavily fragmented. While the 60GB seems faster than the 40GB, they both seem to be pretty clearly faster than the previous generation 5400rpm drives.

    The 60GB drive is a Fujitsu MHS, with exceptionally high density (53 gigabits per square inch) and four recording heads and two platters.

    The 40GB drive appears to be a Toshiba GAS drive, with a more normal density (35 gigabits per square inch) but the same four recording heads and two platters. Fujitsu's MHS drive only has three heads in the 40GB size, also working on two platters.

    Anyway, I'm thinking Toshiba's 40 will be faster than Fujitsu's 40, but the Fujitsu 60 will beat both of them. We'll soon find out . . I have a 1GHz Powerbook on order that I downgraded to the 40GB hard drive thinking I would never fill it up (having still not come close to filling the 40GB in my desktop that I bought two years ago) and also thinking that it would be faster to run Norton on the smaller drive. Now I'm not so sure . . . I'm wishing I got the bigger drive. At $100 extra, not exactly a huge issue. But, oh well. At least I have a $100 head start towards getting an external backup drive next summer.

    It will be interesting to run xBench both before and after I install my software, and again after I've optimized the drive.
  • Reply 31 of 31
    Norton bad!!
Sign In or Register to comment.