2.5 inch 15K HD

Are there any and would this fit in a laptop?

http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Hard-driv...f=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=pc&qid=1238796825&sr=1-11

 

Generally 10Krpm and 15Krpm drives are 2.5" but put into 3.5" enclosures. I doubt they are designed for the normal shocks of a laptop, and they also run a bit hotter than normal 2.5" drives as well as consume more current.

So yes they exist, but only for desktops and servers, really.

 

Also, why would you ever pay $350 for a 73 GB 15K RPM mechanical drive for a laptop (Assuming even theoretically that it would work) when you can pay $350 and get an 80GB X-25M?

 

Just curious

 

Well... still, that's not the right direction to be curious in.

 

I want to make a laptop sing

 

Rob it isnot going to work for three reasons, Height, Voltage and interface
That drive only comes in SAS and SCSI forms, both of which no laptop on the market has for a harddrive interface. Generally the 2.5" drives like the savvio and the ultrastar are 18-25mm thick, more than double the thickness of a normal harddrive. And ontop of that these drives need a 12V power source which no laptop seems to be able to have

K-TRON

 

Give it an X25-M, and it will sing.
Give it something like a VelociRaptor, and it will melt.
There is a difference.

 

It was worth a shot...

 

just picture what your laptop would look like after that thing exploded...

Intel M-25X is your best bet.

 

Intel M-25X is very expensive. You can get a 10KRPM 300GB 2.5HDD for your laptop for $199 from newegg.

HDD are generally much cheaper /GB than SSD. If you need a lot of fast storage, HDD is the way to go.

Also.. there's not much speed difference between Intel M-25X and Velocirapter. Both drive will probably max out the bandwidth to the SATA port (around 120-140MB/s) on current laptops. SSD in this case will only excel in access time and power consumption.

 

The WD Velociraptor will not work in any laptop. It requires a 12V power source. A few NBR members as well as I have proven that it doesnt work in the Dell XPS 1710, XPS1730, Asus G50, Clevo D900K, and the D901C.

The fastest mechanical laptop harddrive has a 7200rpm spindle speed.
A X-25M would be faster than any 2.5" laptop drive, but it does not have that sound a mechanical drive has. To me thats a real killer. 15K drives sound amazing

K-TRON

 

SanDisk's Says New MLC Solid State Drives Equivalent to 40,000RPM Hard Drive http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ne...d_state_drives_equivalent_40000rpm_hard_drive

 

Ha.

And what exactly do you think makes computers feel faster?

Access time.

 

Access time and insane read/write speeds. That is why only now SSD's are catching up to Ramdiscs like the Iram and the Flash IO

loading wise my ramdisc loads files faster than my 15K drives. I do not own an SSD so I cannot speak for them. The I-RAM is significantly faster than most SSD's but it lacks the space. It is limited to 4Gb per module.

The X-25E is probably the best SSD on the market these days being SLC and all. However its really expensive

K-TRON

 

Well, insane read/write speeds on small files is what really sets them apart. There reaches a point where higher transfer speed is not perceivable in standard application usage. My 7k500 WD drive has 0.06 MB/s transfer rate on 4K random reads. My Vertex has 29 MB/s transfer rate on 4K random reads.

So access time + insane read/write speeds on small files., which is by far the vast bulk of what an OS / applications hit a drive with.

 

Depending on what you're intended to use your computer for, access time might not be very important.

E.G. I use my comptuer for digital media creation with adobe premiere, after effects..etc. HDDs in RAID is a better choice. It offers better reliability, cheaper price, more storage sapce, faster throughtput (very close to 300MB/s, limited by SATAII controller).

With SSD, my computer wouldnt' be any faster than HDD setup. It might be a little bit slower actually. The program that I'm using will be preloaded into ram so access time and speed isn't an issue. As stated above, HDDs in RAID will be faster than a single intel SSD in my case.

Anyways.. If one absolutely wants the best speed, consider getting 8-16GB of ram on your computer and set them as RAM drive. Set them as cache for all of your programs and it'll be at least 500 times faster than the fastest SSD in 4k read/write (probably in the area of 5000MB/s for 4KB random read/write compared to the "slow" intel SSD). The setup will probably be cheaper and provide a better solution for those people who'se looking for the best performance.

 

You however are the vast minority of computer users. Even among "enthusiasts", not many people do heavy media creation. Yes, there may be situations where large RAID setups are preferred, but given any computer situation, somebody can always come along and say "Well but in my setup it's not the best." There is an exception to everything, but it's extremely unproductive to deter the 99.5% majority by posting incomplete facts about your 0.05%.

 

If you read my post carefully, I've stated in the first sentence, "depending on what you're intended to use your comptuer for, access time might not be very important.", which means this is true in some cases. Then i've given an example or instance where access time is not important. Also, I've said "my computer" which doesn't mean majority of other people's computer.

Also, you don't need a "large" RAID setup to achieve throughtput beyond intel's SSD. A 2 disk RAID 0 have the potential to exceed the SSD's sequencial throughtput. A 4 disk RAID 10 will certainly own an intel SSD in sequential read and exceed the SSD's sequential write throughtput while having a backup. If you setup 4disk RAID0, it'll max out the SATA II bandwdith.
E.G. 4x 500GB HDD = $200, 2TB, 200-300MB/s sequential read/write depending on setup

Anywho, I'm merely stating a exception(s).

 

I do see the disclaimer, I just know how the casual user reads through threads like this and their take is "Well hmm, he says that SSDs aren't much faster, and RAID setups are better."

It comes down to perception really, and when underrepresented populations overrepresent on forums, sometimes the less educated consumers are thrown off.

 

LOL... you have a point.

If all the casual reader actually use their hdd the "right" way, they wouldn't need any SSD or RAID. Everything would be too fast for them.

 

A good allowance in space for an HD inside the laptop is important for ventilation purposes, you wouldn't want a single component causing issues on your entire system.

 

The 'right' way? Is that a joke?

As much as I enjoy harddrives and think that they are the better value for most people right now, to say that 4 drives in RAID0 is the best option is plain stupid.

First, this is a laptop forum. And I have yet to see a laptop that has space for four harddrives. Also, lets not forget that laptop drives have smaller capacities and higher price tags. Using 500GB drives required to max the SATAII bus after you get more then a few percent of the the disk filled would cost you more then the Intel SSD being that they cost $100 each.

Assuming then your talking purly about desktops, RAID0 with four harddrives is completely irresponsible. That would leave you with a very small MTBF, so the user would be extremely prone to data loss. This would be bad in a desktop, retarded in a laptop.

Other then watching HD video, I can't think of one thing a normal user does where sequential reads are more important then the random reads. Even saving large CAD files or playing games now see limited gains from purely sequential improvements.:

Starting the OS: Random
Surfing the net: Random
Game levels: Random
Playing music: Too small to matter
Normal video: Too small to matter
HD video: Sequential

 

just going to make a few corrections.
1. no 10k rpm disk will EVER work in a laptop
2. HDD are cheap/GB that is true.
3. by the way the SATA interface runs at 300MB/s not 120-140. So your 200$ Desktop disk can only get 1/2 the speed of the Intel. how is that almost the same? RAID 0 2 of them = 400$ which is more than the the Intel, and it's slower with a theoretical range of 240-280MB/s according to your numbers. the Intel has been proven to hit just shy of 270Mbps...

by the way my cheapo G.Skill JMicron(I think) manages 140MB/s easy, and that's on anything bigger than 512KB (it really likes the 2MB files @ 160MB/s) it only costs 150$