Toshiba Announces Highest Capacity Notebook HDD: 750GB Discussion

Toshiba today announced the world's highest capacity 2.5" hard drive with a standard 9.5mm height, the 750GB MK7559GSXP.

Read the full content of this Article: Toshiba Announces Highest Capacity Notebook HDD: 750GB

 

Interesting hard drive. Looking forward to some benchmarks.

So 375 GB per platter is now possible, that would mean 1125 GB in a 2.5" 12.5 mm hard drive is possible as well.

 

Nice. Except I'd rather see a 240GB Intel G2 SSD for the price of this 750GB HDD. It will be nice for those that like to store their video collections to view on the go though!

 

If it is scaled up from the current MK5065GSX and MK6465GSX then it will be a very good blend between performance and power efficiency.

Toshiba has also announced a 3 platter 12.5-millimeter-high disk drive, the MK1059GSM with 1TB of storage. However, WD has had one of those nominally available for several months.

John

 

Now would be a sweet time to start seeing a larger then 500GB 7200RPM drives.

 

cool news.

 

but depressingly , they still can't make any 7200rpm drive with capacity greater than 500GB...

 

still higher density disks can keep up with faster/lower density ones...it is not the same, but at least you get massive storage and a relatively good speed.

 

Agreed ... I am glad they finally made this 750gb drive available. Kinda wish there was a little more buffer size on it, but it is a step in the right direction imo....

 

how much info you really need> I have a 500GB drive and it is less than 30% filled...I could easily get away with an SSD

 

2x or even 4x the cache will not have much of an affect on performance . . . maybe in certain instances, but in overall performance, no. I would rather see the money invested in other areas of the drive.

 

I think the days of the the rotating media for mobile devices like notebooks are over. SSDs will come to rule the day.

Having said that competition is always good and I'm sure 7200 RPM drives with a terabyte will be around the corner for 50 bucks.

 

I don't know, 500GB SSDs becoming affordable might take longer than you think.

 

Sure, the time when SSD will rule the day is when it's at least 30-40% of it's price now, which will be a very long time, especially since it's component materials competes with almost all semiconductor devices.

 

SSDs are still in their infancy; for consumers, they have only been around for a few years. Look at the huge disparities in performance between SSDs on the market today. Different controllers, type of memory, manufacturing process of the memory, life cycle, reliability, and so on. It is an immature technology. Hard drives, on the other hand, have been around for three decades and the technology is proven and mature. They are very predictable in terms of performance and reliability.

And as Phil noted, it may take longer for SSDs to become affordable than most people think. Right now a 500GB notebook drive can be had for around $75 without even looking for deals; that is 6.67GB/dollar. A budget 40GB SSD costs $120, or 0.33GB/dollar. Not everything boils down to GB/dollar, but regardless it is a huge disadvantage to buying an SSD right now. That, and unpredictability make them unattractive buys even for technology enthusiasts like myself.

I predict it will take 4-5 years on the conservative end for SSDs to get more mature and come down in price. I doubt by that time that they will have replaced hard drives, though.

 

At the moment a 2.5" 500GB SSD is around US$1400. Even if that drops to US$1000 during this year, that is still more than 10 x the cost an a 500GB HDD.

Some notebook manufacturers are trying to get the best of both by making space for both an SSD and a HDD.

John

 

Either way, I can see hard drives sticking around for a long time. May become more and more common, even in smaller notebooks, to have a small and fast SSD, coupled with a larger capacity hard drive for storage. It's too bad so many notebooks only come equipped with a single 2.5" drive bay. I know packaging may be an issue, but I just hope they get creative in the future. If the Sony Z can fit two hard drive bays in their 13" why not 14" and 15" notebooks. Heck even my Sager seems like there should be ample room for a hard drive if it were designed a little differently internally.

Either way, until SSD's compete cost-wise per GB, mechanical drives are here to stay if only for storage reasons. I can't see having 5TB of SSD's in my WHS.

 

Space is hardly an issue for a SSD/HDD combination. Manufacturers could essentially integrate a fast 64gb SSD onto the laptop's mainboard to serve as a repository for the OS and frequently used applications then have a bay for a larger capacity HDD. If they wanted to they could integrate this type of setup into a 12" chassis (or smaller if they wanted I bet) without too much hassle.

Hell, Sony put out the UX series 3 years ago. Space is no longer an issue, the only thing holding this back is the price.

 

Silverstone makes a hybrid SSD-HDD device that is very promising:
http://www.silverstonetek.com/products/p_contents.php?pno=HDDBOOST&area
See the page for info on how it works; essentially, the storage controller on the device handles what data is copied to the SSD (mostly front-end data such as the OS), and no drivers are necessary. Right now the device is for desktops only . . . a notebook manufacturer would have to custom integrate it into their products.

 

I had an idea to just integrate a reasoably fast and inexpensive SSD (maybe 40GB or 64GB, whatever makes sense financially) into an existing hard drive, and use the SSD for OS, and HDD for storage. It would be seen as two distinct drives, but not a hybrid like that silverstone. Would be great for existing laptops with only a single HDD slot.

 

I've been thinking along the same lines. It would be a rerun of the hybrid HDDs that were tried about 3 years back but didn't provide the expected benefits. With a single HDD platter holding up to 375GB there should be space within the standard HDD form factor to fit one layer of SSD memory modules.

John

 

That would be awesome. Give the laptop user the benefit of SSD for OS and apps while still having capacity storage for a reasonable price. At least for a few years until SSD prices get under control.

I think it's perfectly possible, and if they've managed to create a controller to manage the hybrid design in the desktop, why not this? Just see it as two separate drives seems like it would be easier. Just controlling two devices separately in the same enclosure.

Seems 30-40GB SSD's are reasonably priced at the moment, and would suffice for an OS and basic apps too. As SSD's drop in price, manufacturer's could increase SSD sizes in this hybrid device until SSD prices became reasonable for larger capacities.

I'd happily pay $200 for a 320GB hard drive coupled with a fast 32GB SSD.

I think I need to sell the idea to Seagate or Hitachi since they already make decent HDD's and are in the SSD market.

 

Not forgetting Samsung who would like to think that they are very strong in both segments. However, the previous Samsung hybrid drive wasn't a great success. There's also Toshiba.

John

 

Totally QFT on this one....

 

I dont think these drives are really oriented towards laptops primarily.

For me they are much more interesting as replacements for the klutzy 3.5" drives that we currently use in home servers. With 750Gb or 1TB in a small 2.5" drive like this, why mess with the 3.5" ones at all. These drives are smaller, equally low power, quieter and if you have to remove them, you can pop them in any $12 unpowered USB enclosure and power them direclty off of the USB data cable. In contrast. With the 3.5" drives if you remove them from a main unit, now you need a huge enclosure and external power supply to get at the data.

Especially with Synology, QNAP and co now making home servers that come only with 2.5" slots, this is the way storage is going.

So these drives dont really need to compete with SSD to be successfull at all. What they are doing is killing off the old dinousaur 3.5" drives.

 

Most USB powered enclosures require two or three USB connectors, which isn't a solution either. There are also hard drive docks to access data from 3.5" or 2.5" drives. Plus in most home server instances you need adapters for the 2.5" drives which is a pita to install.

I don't see 2.5" replacing 3.5". You have 2TB 3.5" drives pretty cheap, but largest 2.5" is 750GB. Not quite competitive (yet at least).

 

3.5" drives means faster access speed as well, bigger platter = more distance covered per revolution. 2.5" drives are still mostly for laptops and external HDD.

 

I said the same thing when I got my first 500MB hdd, my first 1GB hdd, my first 20GB my first 40gb...etc. Now Im stuck with a 160gb hdd that is nearly full.

This sounds like an amazing idea if they could pull it off. I would love to boot and load my OS from an SSD and store media files and such on the larger cyclical HDD portion.

 

No, 3.5" drive does not necessarily mean faster access speed than a 2.5" drive.. All these drives have stats on tests. You should check them and debunk such myths.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

If you have a nasty power hungry, 7200rpm drive AND a bottom of the barrel enclosure AND a cheap laptop you might need 2 USB connectors.

But actually I have never ever needed more than a single USB port to both connect and power my 2.5" drives. And Ive been using middle of the road USB enclosures eg Icybox, Rosewill, etc bought quite inexpensively on Newegg. Drives have been 5400rpm such as the WD Blue, a few Hitachis and some Samsungs.

So what you say is basically incorrect.

 

I have never owned an SSD, but I want to know, does it really make thatmuch of a difference? I'm having trouble seeing its value in lieu of the extreme costs. Or is it like one of those "once you go SSD, you never go platter".

 

SSDs are pretty much the only upgrade you can do to give a noticeable difference but for most consumers, the cost is still too great (do you really need a faster system if you never really stress it out? if you have the money, why not).

 

Check the power requirements of your drive, most likely 500mA. Max power draw from a USB 2.0 port is 500mA. Not all USB 2.0 ports adhere to this spec. Take into account any variation from the USB enclosure, and you could easily exceed that 500mA. Two USB ports is strongly advised with any third party enclosure. That's why most third party enclosures come with a dual USB cable. It's not just for the heck of it. If you are knowledgable about your components, then sure you may know for certain it's not an issue, but that's a small minority.

Also 7200RPM and 5400RPM use the same amount of power typically. Check out the WD Scorpio Blue (5400RPM) and Black (7200RPM). Identical power requirements.

The WD Passports and such are specifically designed to work with a single USB port, but still you may run into issues if your USB port doesn't supply the full 500mA. It is a known issue for people to have trouble using just single USB port, so what I am stating is NOT incorrect. I'd rather my data be safe than lost. Not a good recommendation to say it's wrong to use two USB ports. This should not be a generalization to recommend to anyone without them having enough knowledge to make that decision.

 

I just noticed that the WD 750GB drive is also 9.5mm height for sale at newegg. Was Toshiba first?

 

They announced it first but Toshiba's are typically difficult to actually find to purchase.

 

3.5" doesn't necessarily mean faster, but it's a factor. Given other factors being same eg. RPM, data density, architecture(dual platter/single platter etc), the 3.5" drive will be faster. The reason that a same capacity 2.5" drive could be equal a 3.5" drive speed is because it has higher data density - more data on smaller platter, that's also the reason why 2.5" is smaller in terms of storage space.

 

The 300GB Raptor is actually a 2.5" to improve performance because higher data density and 10000RPM spindle. And yeah, smaller disc means less storage.

 

Great find. Should be an interesting drive. Looking forward to see benchmarks.

Thread started here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=6083759#post6083759

 

This is a great idea.

I've heard that is it the best upgrade you can do. Hard disks, especially in laptops, are the weakest link.

I am currently looking for a laptop with 2 hard disks as I plan to have one with a 7200rpm 500gb and a ssd with the OS on. There are not many around. Sony E Series 17.3" have 2 hard disks and the new Acer Ethos does as well.
I currently have a 3 year old Sony BX297 laptop which has 2 hard disks in it. I was going to upgrade one of them to a SSD but I realised that because it has SATA version 1 it would throttle the SSD.

 

It does make a noticeable difference. I got an 80GB Intel G2 for my gaming desktop, and everything loads quickly. But I just don't see how it can justify the price. I was just a sucker and had to give it a try so I could see for myself. It is nice, and might justify a 2-3x price increase from a comparable sized HDD, but not 5-6x (or more). It's almost like going from a low cache 5400RPM green drive to the VelociRaptor 300GB drive, which is about a 3x price difference for similar capacities. You'd probably get the same performance improvement going from the VelociRaptor to an SSD.

The Asus G73 comes with two hard drive bays. No 15" ones do that I am aware of.

 

I really want an SSD, but the price needs to get down to $1 per GB. I could swallow that.

I have a long wait ahead of me.

 

Pricing seems a bit parabolic at the moment. Lower capacities decent price, but cost per GB goes up substantially fairly quickly. IMHO 128GB is absolute minimum required unless all you do is surf web and manage a few word or excel files. ~ 250GB is what I would probably need to be reasonable, although I'd settle for a 160GB Intel at < $300, preferably less. So I guess for me $2/GB max for me, but preferably $1.50/GB.

 

Envy 15 comes with 2 hard slots

 

2x 1.8" HDDs or 1x 2.5" HDD.