RPM Ratings of Modern Hard Drives

Discussion in 'Hardware Discussion & Support' started by IvanV, Sep 9, 2019.

  1. IvanV

    IvanV HH Assassin Guild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,432
    Likes Received:
    1,665
    Trophy Points:
    138
    I know that hard drives aren't the coolest components out there, but hey, I'm a hoarder, and it looks like I'll be in the market for something around the 4TB range fairly soon. (I just did a really quick cleanup of my main data partition this morning and got back to around 280GB free, but then I took the Uplay+ promotion and downloaded AC Odyssey and now I'm down to 170. I guess I'll uninstall it when the month ends and there's more crap that I could get rid of, but the writing is on the wall - I need more space.)

    Therefore, I took a look at the hardware listings and saw that 4-6TB drives cost around what I expected, but then I noticed a weird thing - all of the drives were 5400 or 5900rpm models. Last time I bought a hard drive, normally they were spinning at 7200rpm, except for WD Green and the likes, cheap models which were usually built to a lower quality standard and thus less reliable, but now it's WD Blue and Purple and various Seagates too. So what gives? Are all HDDs now crap, or are WD Blues, Purples and other stuff rated for 24/7 operation still fine? What about the performance? I know that, due to the high density, they should be just fine as far as sequential reading is concerned, but seek times on 3.5" 5x00rpm hard drives?! Sounds bad! But how bad is it?

    I'm fully aware of the existence of SSDs, but at the moment, I need the space more badly and funds are limited, plus I'm curious, so what gives? Is 5400rpm the new norm? Are the new drives as reliable as the old ones and are they actually worse performing, or is there some trickery, like more heads?
     
  2. Calliers

    Calliers Just got off the hedonic treadmill... Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    44,514
    Likes Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Well the fact of the matter is that 5400rpm drives are crap. There's just no other way to slice it. When SSD technology began coming out, manufacturers kind of stopped innovation on magnetic drives, and that is the reason higher capacity magnetic drives all spin at 5400rpm for the most part. They may be slow, but if you get a good brand they will be a little more realiable.

    But if you don't have the cash for a 4TB SSD, you just don't have the money. My advice to you, just bite the bullet and get a 5400rpm 4TB or 6TB drive now, and later on when SSDs are much cheaper you can upgrade. I have two 1TB SSDs in my PC, paid an arm and a leg for the Samsung one, paid a more reasonable price for the other, but I also have two 1TB magnetic drives and am not really much of a hoarder so I don't really need a lot of space anyway. And I tend to play a game, finish it then delete it, I never really go back to games that I have already finished. But then again, that's just me.
     
  3. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,540
    Likes Received:
    927
    Trophy Points:
    138
    actually 5400rpm drives aren't crap.... far from it.

    In fact a slew of drives don't even have a fixed RPM anymore... mostly due to power savings and adjusting depending on usage for best performance or ideal seeks and so forth.

    Hardrive RPMs are almost entirely irrelevant these days with that all in mind. For example WD's black series drives are common 7200rpm where as the reds are 5400rpm or there abouts. In most head to head comparisons of large capacity drives, they don't perform all the different, in fact in just as many cases, the reds were faster or just better... REDs are for NAS storage however, but they are phenominal as primary OS drives too due to some of their really fine tuned firmware and adaptive capabilities.

    The black on the other hand while managed to spit out some obviously higher numbers in a few senarios, were often much louder, more clickety and frankly their failure rates aren't too pleasant, specially compared to the NAS.

    I've a WD gold which is basically the pinnacle of WD's consumer or prosumer... and when i compared it directly with the WD... they performed pretty damn close to each other as well. Would i suggest paying the insane premium for a gold? No...

    Even the Purples are pretty damn impressive.

    I avoid the blues and the greens from any company are always to be avoided as they perform like utter shit and i've WAY too man green and blue drives piled up at my store due to failures, along with about half as many blacks.

    Seagate is to be avoided like the plague in almost all cases... fyi...


    I should however state that there are hybrid SSDHDs... a combination of say 4 to 8 or maybe 16GB of SSD cache onboard along with the spinning rust.

    I sold dozens of machines both laptops and desktops with the Seagate Momentus XTs.... hell even samsung had some models listed that were just rebadged Seagate Momentus XTs. There were 7200 and 5400rpm 2.5" versions. I know many companies now have hybrid 3.5" drives too, but most of the large capacity ones last i checked were pure drive with 64-128MB caches.
     
    Calliers likes this.
  4. Calliers

    Calliers Just got off the hedonic treadmill... Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    44,514
    Likes Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    139
    I've never liked Seagate drives from the get go. Nor have I trusted them.
     
  5. IvanV

    IvanV HH Assassin Guild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,432
    Likes Received:
    1,665
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Every Manufacturer (Seagate, Maxtor, Hitachi...) has had some series or batch that were craptastic, so one really needs to look at who's doing well and who's doing poorly at the moment.

    Apparently, there are 5400rpm WD purples and 7200rpm ones and the same goes for Seagate. They don't import the higher grade ones much here, though. I was able to spot a Toshiba drive that fits the bill on paper (and is supposedly really fairly decent): 4TB, 7200rpm, 128MB cache.
     
  6. Tyrsonswood

    Tyrsonswood HH's curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    13,248
    Likes Received:
    964
    Trophy Points:
    138
    I'm not so sure RPM has much to do with data read and write speed or quality like it did years ago... Data throughput, access times and density are up so the speed of the platters wouldn't matter as much as it used to. And a "slower" drive should generate less heat, less noise, and last longer. (technically)


    But, I no longer follow market trends so what would I know.
     
  7. Calliers

    Calliers Just got off the hedonic treadmill... Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    44,514
    Likes Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    139
    I speak against Seagate drives, yet have one in my PC, go figure.
     
  8. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,540
    Likes Received:
    927
    Trophy Points:
    138
    I've only had bad troubles with the seagate 3.5" drives.. the 2.5" like the momentus ones have been fine.

    If you look at the yearly report for drive failures percentages on their sold quantity, seagate usually remains at the top of the list for being bad.

    Due to the data density of the drives these days, throughput of 200MB/s isn't totally off the wall with most averaging in the 100-150MB/s range... like i said, it's mostly irrelevant these days, specially since almost all the the HDs being bought and installed are being almost entirely used as storage and not as primary OS/Program/Game drives.
     
  9. IvanV

    IvanV HH Assassin Guild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    10,432
    Likes Received:
    1,665
    Trophy Points:
    138
    I had a weird error updating CS:GO the other night, the updater was reporting error while writing a certain file. I half ascribed it to a software fault (I deleted the partially downloaded update, tried to update again, same thing), but then it got me thinking, so tonight I checked with CrystalDiskInfo and it gave warnings for both of my hard drives:

    2TB.PNG 1TB.PNG

    Granted, those two have put in some serious hours (especially the Hitachi, which, come to think of it, is roughly 10 years old), and they moved to a different apartment a couple of years ago and the case occasionally gets lightly kicked, being situated under the table, but I was still unpleasantly surprised. Now I might actually have to get a new drive.

    EDIT: SeaTools say that both drives are at 100% health. Go figure.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2019
  10. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,540
    Likes Received:
    927
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Reallocated sectors count while high should technically be "healthy" since they appear to have been done... It all depends on how the drive is registering the error. It would probably be wise to do a the very long test.

    Just under 4 and a half years worth of up time isn't terrible... but it's not exactly great either. I'm not at all surprised by the life span of the seagate.... the hitachi depending on the model.... hasn't been one of my favorites either

    Currently have a boatload of of WD reds floating about.... many of which are seeing 24/7 read/writes all day all night every day and even on holidays. These have piled on roughly 7 years of hard labour and zero reported sector error or any kind of smart trigger. I'm pretty sure they'll hit 100,000 hours or better.

    With the MASSIVE reduction in the cost of SSDs.... such as being able to pick up 250GB Samsung 860 Evo's for just over $50... I can now get the 2 and 4TB drives for a pretty arguably reasonable cost... sure not remotely as cheap as a spinning disk of course, but a 4TB SSD from samsung for $600 is actually a pretty decent value considering they were well into the realms of $2000 not all that long ago.
     

Share This Page

visited