Are people really happy to be using 5400rpm hard drives?

Last time I used a 5400rpm drive was back in 2001, a 100gb IDE 5400rpm that couldn't capture DV quality footage; after about 2 seconds it would drop frames like MAD!

I've never used anything lower than 7200 since and I imagine with today's current HD footage, 5400rpm even in a SATA will seriously struggle to keep up. I had to ask for the 7200rpm drive over the phone with my Studio 15. Even as a system drive and using a 7200rpm external, I can imagine serious performance issues.

I have 5 2TB externals for my desktop, so I'm really not short of space and my laptop is just an intermediary, so I don't mind not being able to go higher than 160gb. Demand 7200rpm people; you'll just be disappointed otherwise.

 

Well, wouldn't using a 320gb 5400rpm drive have the same speed as a 120gb 7200rpm drive? The density of the platters and what not?

 

Yes, as the data density of the platters goes up, a 5400rpm drive can catch up to a less data dense 7200rpm drive.

So, in other words, provided the same number of platters, a 250GB 5400RPM drive might perform similarly to a 160GB 7200RPM drive. This is because more data is flowing under the read/write head per rotation (on the more data dense drive).

 

Well, I had a 100gb 5400 and got a 120gb 7200 back in '01... The performance difference was massive.

 

My 120gb 5400 rpm AHCI SATA drive smokes my desktops 120gb IDE drive. And no, its not entirely from using a better interface. The former hits almost 60mb/sec, and the latter maxes at about 45mb/sec. Needless to say, thats a big improvement over the 2 year old lappy I have at work that is like, 20-25mb /sec max. It hurts to use that thing.

 

For what I use my laptop the 5400 it's fine, haven't notice any slow downs because of it. Mind you on the use applications that requires my HD to find a tone of info. Apparently the 7200 will use more power (less battery life) but will run cooler.

 

That's read speed though, no?

 

Actually, a 320GB 5400rpm harddrive is very much comparable to a 200GB 7200rpm harddrive. I own them, I use them, I maintain them, I benchmarked them, I store tons of stuff in them, they both performed exactly the same. See my sig.

Not to mention both are having the same 16mb cache.

 

It's a non-issue for me. I'd rather have the extra space than speed in a laptop. If they were both the same price, that's be another story. .

 

The 160gb 7200rpm is the same price as the 320gb 5400rpm. Also, I'd rather have the extra speed, as it means more to me than space since I have 5 2TB externals. I mean, this laptop for me is just something that I will use on set when shooting and also between the time I'm off set and away from the office/home. I won't be keeping the same random entertainment, films and games I have on my home desktop, so I don't need 320gb, but I do need 7200rpm.

I would just prefer to keep everything on or above 7200rpm to ensure that there'll definatly be no bottle neck in performance.

 

My laptop is now my only computer in the house so it's used for everything. Prior to the studio 15 I'm using now, I had an Acer with dual core turion and a 5400rpm drive. I used it to edit video captured on a Sony HDR-HC3E in 720p with no dropped frames or issues at all. I've not tried the studio yet, but I can't imagine it would be any worse.