2.5" HDD 5400rpm vs. 7200rpm?

I need to purchase 2.5" HDD for my multimedia player (http://
www.sarotech.com/english/product/dvp-254.html), but I am curious if
7200rpm HDD might produce too much heat when I use it.

Currently, I'm using 100GB 7200 rpm HDD, and this one produce too much
heat when I use it. But I'm planning to purchase 320GB HDD to expand
the capacity. My problem is I am not sure if I need 7200 rpm HDD just
to play movie files, while, I think, 7200 rpm HDD produce more heat
then 5400 rpm HDD.

Can you guys suggest me which HDD I should purchase?

Thank you in advance.

For an MP3 player, it doesn't matter.

It's not an absolute given that higher rpm drives automatically produce
more heat, although it's often true. But when comparing drives for heat
generation (which is really a comparison of power consumption ... the
power consumed by a drive gets converted into heat), you have to compare
two specific drives. While it's probably more often true than not that
the faster drive uses more power and generates more heat, it is
absolutely not ALWAYS true. Thus, for your purposes, you cannot compare
7200 rpm drives to 5400 rpm drives. You can only compare one particular
drive model with another particular drive model.


qwerty007 wrote:
> I need to purchase 2.5" HDD for my multimedia player (http://
> www.sarotech.com/english/product/dvp-254.html), but I am curious if
> 7200rpm HDD might produce too much heat when I use it.
>
> Currently, I'm using 100GB 7200 rpm HDD, and this one produce too much
> heat when I use it. But I'm planning to purchase 320GB HDD to expand
> the capacity. My problem is I am not sure if I need 7200 rpm HDD just
> to play movie files, while, I think, 7200 rpm HDD produce more heat
> then 5400 rpm HDD.
>
> Can you guys suggest me which HDD I should purchase?
>
> Thank you in advance.

Barry Watzman wrote:
> For an MP3 player, it doesn't matter.
>
> It's not an absolute given that higher rpm drives automatically produce
> more heat, although it's often true. But when comparing drives for heat
> generation (which is really a comparison of power consumption ... the
> power consumed by a drive gets converted into heat), you have to compare
> two specific drives. While it's probably more often true than not that
> the faster drive uses more power and generates more heat, it is
> absolutely not ALWAYS true. Thus, for your purposes, you cannot compare
> 7200 rpm drives to 5400 rpm drives. You can only compare one particular
> drive model with another particular drive model.
>
>
> qwerty007 wrote:
>> I need to purchase 2.5" HDD for my multimedia player (http://
>> www.sarotech.com/english/product/dvp-254.html), but I am curious if
>> 7200rpm HDD might produce too much heat when I use it.
>>
>> Currently, I'm using 100GB 7200 rpm HDD, and this one produce too much
>> heat when I use it. But I'm planning to purchase 320GB HDD to expand
>> the capacity. My problem is I am not sure if I need 7200 rpm HDD just
>> to play movie files, while, I think, 7200 rpm HDD produce more heat
>> then 5400 rpm HDD.
>>
>> Can you guys suggest me which HDD I should purchase?
>>
>> Thank you in advance.
It sounds to me like your primary concern is for sequential performance
of the drive. The RPM is purely for random performance and has next to
nothing to do with sequential performance. If you need a drive to play
movie files then RPM is of very little concern and you should get the
lower RPM drive.

Your statement is simply wrong. A faster turning drive potentially is
capable of delivering the data faster (certainly it does if the number
of sectors per track is the same, but since the number of sectors per
track may be greater, lesser or the same, no generalized statement is
possible).

In the case of a media player, however, it doesn't matter, as neither
audio nor video media will have any need to come off the drive faster
than even the slowest drive can deliver them.



Jim Shipman wrote:

> It sounds to me like your primary concern is for sequential performance
> of the drive. The RPM is purely for random performance and has next to
> nothing to do with sequential performance. If you need a drive to play
> movie files then RPM is of very little concern and you should get the
> lower RPM drive.

The sequential data rate of a high performance disk drive is a function
of many things, but with current drives one of the most difficult is the
ability to write at very high frequency. The channel data rate of the
read/write (mostly write) electronics limits the maximum data rate.
Speeding up the RPM therefore requires that less data be put on each
track (lower the bits per inch; bpi).

When two drives with similar technology are designed the data rate is
therefore limited by the data channel and the lower RPM drive can
support a design with a higher bpi (more sectors per track), and thus
virtually the same data rate as the higher RPM drive. We in the
business call these drives "data tubs" and they have very high capacity,
very high sequential data rates, and poor random performance.

Of course if you are comparing drives at different RPM that are also
different technology (because they were designed at different times or
because they had different design goals (cost vs. performance) then, of
course your mileage will vary, but two drives designed with the same
technology will have very similar sequential data rates regardless of
the RPM they run at.
Jim Shipman

Barry Watzman wrote:
> Your statement is simply wrong. A faster turning drive potentially is
> capable of delivering the data faster (certainly it does if the number
> of sectors per track is the same, but since the number of sectors per
> track may be greater, lesser or the same, no generalized statement is
> possible).
>
> In the case of a media player, however, it doesn't matter, as neither
> audio nor video media will have any need to come off the drive faster
> than even the slowest drive can deliver them.
>
>
>
> Jim Shipman wrote:
>
>> It sounds to me like your primary concern is for sequential
>> performance of the drive. The RPM is purely for random performance
>> and has next to nothing to do with sequential performance. If you
>> need a drive to play movie files then RPM is of very little concern
>> and you should get the lower RPM drive.

"Jim Shipman" <> wrote in message
news:Q0Jsl.3106$...
> The sequential data rate of a high performance disk drive is a function of
> many things, but with current drives one of the most difficult is the
> ability to write at very high frequency. The channel data rate of the
> read/write (mostly write) electronics limits the maximum data rate.
> Speeding up the RPM therefore requires that less data be put on each track
> (lower the bits per inch; bpi).
>
> When two drives with similar technology are designed the data rate is
> therefore limited by the data channel and the lower RPM drive can support
> a design with a higher bpi (more sectors per track), and thus virtually
> the same data rate as the higher RPM drive. We in the business call these
> drives "data tubs" and they have very high capacity, very high sequential
> data rates, and poor random performance.
>
> Of course if you are comparing drives at different RPM that are also
> different technology (because they were designed at different times or
> because they had different design goals (cost vs. performance) then, of
> course your mileage will vary, but two drives designed with the same
> technology will have very similar sequential data rates regardless of the
> RPM they run at.
> Jim Shipman
>

Although true in theory, in practice the number of bits per track can be
potentially the same for a 7200 drive as for a 5400. The speed at which the
data needs to be written or read is not the limiting factor. The limitation
is more or less purely a magnetic one. Thus a 7200 drive will potentially
deliver data faster than a 5400 one. There are other factors at play here
such as the seek speed and how the sectors are ordered in the track. Since
modern drives invariably have a large data cache, the real limitation is
often the interface with the outside world.

> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> Your statement is simply wrong. A faster turning drive potentially is
>> capable of delivering the data faster (certainly it does if the number of
>> sectors per track is the same, but since the number of sectors per track
>> may be greater, lesser or the same, no generalized statement is
>> possible).
>>
>> In the case of a media player, however, it doesn't matter, as neither
>> audio nor video media will have any need to come off the drive faster
>> than even the slowest drive can deliver them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim Shipman wrote:
>>
>>> It sounds to me like your primary concern is for sequential performance
>>> of the drive. The RPM is purely for random performance and has next to
>>> nothing to do with sequential performance. If you need a drive to play
>>> movie files then RPM is of very little concern and you should get the
>>> lower RPM drive.

On Mar 8, 2:21*am, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:


>
> In the case of a media player, however, it doesn't matter, as neither
> audio nor video media will have any need to come off the drive faster
> than even the slowest drive can deliver them.
>
>
>
Hmm , so Barry even with 4200 rpm drives running Blu Ray Disc, would
there be any much difference in performance if compared to 5400 and
7200 rpm drive speed?

Your statement is simply not correct. Certainly, many 5400 rpm drives,
probably even most (meaning more than 50% but not 70%-80%-90%) will run
cooler. But, equally, many 7,200 rpm drives run cooler than many 5,400
rpm drives. If you want to compare drives, you have to compare specific
drives. You can't generalize, because not all 7,200 rpm drives run
hotter than all 5,400 rpm drives, and in fact while as a generality it
may be correct, it's not OVERWHELMINGLY correct; there are LOTS of 7,200
rpm drives that run cooler than MANY 5,400 rpm drives.

Jack wrote:

>
> 5400 rpm will run cooler, without a doubt. I always fit them when 'cool' is
> required.
>
>

Barry Watzman wrote:
> Your statement is simply not correct. Certainly, many 5400 rpm drives,
> probably even most (meaning more than 50% but not 70%-80%-90%) will run
> cooler. But, equally, many 7,200 rpm drives run cooler than many 5,400
> rpm drives. If you want to compare drives, you have to compare specific
> drives. You can't generalize, because not all 7,200 rpm drives run
> hotter than all 5,400 rpm drives, and in fact while as a generality it
> may be correct, it's not OVERWHELMINGLY correct; there are LOTS of 7,200
> rpm drives that run cooler than MANY 5,400 rpm drives.
>
> Jack wrote:
>
>>
>> 5400 rpm will run cooler, without a doubt. I always fit them when
>> 'cool' is
>> required.
>>
>>
I would agree with you Barry, but it looks like not many manufacturer
are yet into 320G drives. As far as a quick search tells me, only
Western Digital offers the choice of speed in that capacity for PATA,
and for IDE, no choice, only 5400. The good news is, prices have fallen
considerably. No so long ago, the highest capacity one could buy would
fetch over $200.00, now around $80.00!

Heat is one thing, but I personally would put more emphasis on
vibrations. I do not have first hand experience with 7,200 speeds, but
that would be my first concern. Vibration under your wrist can be very
unpleasant.

--
John Doue

In news:s7Hul.87525$,
Barry Watzman typed on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:19:08 -0400:
> Your statement is simply not correct. Certainly, many 5400 rpm
> drives, probably even most (meaning more than 50% but not
> 70%-80%-90%) will run cooler. But, equally, many 7,200 rpm drives
> run cooler than many 5,400 rpm drives. If you want to compare
> drives, you have to compare specific drives. You can't generalize,
> because not all 7,200 rpm drives run hotter than all 5,400 rpm
> drives, and in fact while as a generality it may be correct, it's not
> OVERWHELMINGLY correct; there are LOTS of 7,200 rpm drives that run
> cooler than MANY 5,400 rpm drives.

Where are these cool running 7200 rpm drives? As this isn't something
they advertise. As many 7200 rpm drives consumes about 10 watts. And
those usually runs very hot. Oddly enough, my EeePC machines uses 10
watts for everything. My Gateways use 20 watts for everything. And I am
using 5400 rpm here because they run cooler and uses less power.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu