0
I bought a HP desktop computer (pre-built) last year, wich had a 256GB SSD that has Windows installed on it, along with a 1TB standard HDD, that is 7200rpm.
However, im now running out of space on the 1TB HDD, so im considering replacing it with a higher capacity HDD. I found a few choices of different brands(WD,seagate..), but all of them are all 5400rpm instead of my actual 7200rpm.
So my question is, would downgrading to a 5400rpm really makes a noticeable difference in speed? Does it affect read and write speed of the HDD?
I mainly use my actual 7200rpm HDD to put files-or big programs and few big PC games- on it. I would say my main use of it is to backup files, or put files that dont fit in the SSD on it. I sometimes play those big games that are installed on the 7200rpm HDD, but not that often. Im guessing in the case of playing a game, theres probably a big difference in term of speed between the 7200 and 5400rpm?
Should I still try finding and paying more to buy a 7200rpm, or should the 5400rpm be fine, considering my use of it?
In case it might help for my question, my cpu is an Intel Core i5-8400 along with 12GB of RAM
Thank you
Thank you for your answer. Since I dont have a big budget for this, I did some research on the both 3.5'' models I was debatting for; first one, a WD model WD20EZRZ, wich is 5400rpm, with 64mb cache and 147mb/s host to/from drive rate(sustained). Other option was a Seagate model ST2000DM008, wich is 7200rpm, with 256mb cache and 220mb/s host to/from drive rate. My actual 1TB HDD in my PC is a 7200rpm WD WD10EZEX, 64mb cache, 150mb/s host to/from drive rate(sustained). The Seagate seems like a good choice according the the specs, and is same price as the WD. What do you think? – Martin B. – 2019-07-25T20:01:27.673
(I don't like Seagate but), it benchmarks show the Seagate drive is far superior. https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/WD-Blue-2TB-2015-vs-Seagate-Barracuda-2TB-2018/3521vsm466743 may be useful. (Also https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Seagate-Barracuda-2TB-2018-vs-WD-Blue-1TB-2012/m466743vs1779 compares the Seagate with your old drive). Except for random writes the Barracuda will be faster - but in practice you wont feel a significant speed difference as all these drives are within 20% of each other, and this is only part of the performance equation.
– davidgo – 2019-07-25T20:28:04.573That said, I missed you were using a desktop earlier. I would seriously consider spending the extra money and ADDING a 1TB SSD rather then replacing the 2TB. SSDs are in the order of 10 times more reliable and between 5 and 100 times faster then HDD depending on your metric. Yes, the $ cost is more, but the cost over the disks lifetime will be less, and you get more speed. – davidgo – 2019-07-25T20:37:15.890
I think I need to make things more clear about my setup: my PC has a 256GB SSD that has Windows installed on it. So the PC boot on the SSD. And then I have another HDD, the 1TB WD10EZEX, wich is labeled as DATA, and wich only has a recovery partition on it, and all the rest is my personnal files,games,etc. I want to replace that 1TB HDD with one of the 2 choices I mentionned earlier(wich are both 2TB). – Martin B. – 2019-07-25T22:27:37.697
Also, Im just curious, what are your reasons to dislike Seagate? I always had WD HDD in the past, but I bought last year a Seagate for the first time, to use in a game console, and nothing happened so far(well nothing that ive seen), it still works fine. And considering the seagate one has better performance than the WD one, at the same price, I was considering the seagate but I dont know yet – Martin B. – 2019-07-25T22:29:33.523
I understand your setup. I am unsure why (if money is a concern) you would replace your 1tb drive rather then add an additional drive. I maintain a fair number of systems, and I have experienced far fewer issues with WD drives then with Seagate drives, over a large number of models [ but I've switched most of them to SSD now]. (I am also aware that this is a contentious issue, with plenty others with opposite anecdotes, and after damn lies come the stats which you can convincingly argue either way depending on your data set.) – davidgo – 2019-07-25T22:47:26.483
The thing is that, since its a prebuilt computer from a company(I didnt build myself this PC, it was already prebuilt and sold in an electronic stores), I think theres is just no room inside the PC to add an additionnal 3.5'' hard drive. I doubt theres even a spare SATA connector not in use to connect it. I think pretty much all the port/connector in this machine are already in use. On top of that, maybe even the power supply wouldnt be able to handle an aditionnal internal hard drive, as they probably put the lowest current rating power supply that is just enough to power actual components – Martin B. – 2019-07-25T23:58:57.100
What model is it? (BTW, a hard drive or SSD take up very little power - circa 10 watts. I've not yet come across a desktop system where the power supply was the barrier to an upgrade). I also believe you are wrong about the current rating of a power supply due to mass production, peak usage and reliability demands. Also, an i5 is a mid - upper mid range system and you would expect it to have better-then-entry-level components. Relatedly, does it have a DVD drive, and do you use it? – davidgo – 2019-07-26T00:07:41.987
The PC is an ''HP Pavilion Gaming Desktop 690-0039''. It does have a DVD drive/writer but I barely use it – Martin B. – 2019-07-26T02:00:09.110
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
– davidgo – 2019-07-26T03:50:12.137