The Underscore Archives

There was an article cover 3.5" vs 2.5" drives and Toms Hardware a few
weeks/months back

Andy

On 14/04/2008, andrew holway <andrew at moonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >  Power consumption, heat and really the fact that it isn't as needed -
>  >  on a 2.5" drive, the data density is higher than on a 3.5" drive
>  >  (through either higher density platters, or more platters and more
>  >  heads), which means in real terms a 2.5" 7200rpm drive is a better
>  >  performer than a 3.5" 7200rpm drive.  Thus you can largely get away
>  >  with 5400rpm drives.
>
>
> Only seek time is a bit faster, as you have a smaller platter the out
>  side edge is moving at a slower rate and the rpm are less, the
>  throughput will be slower, by quite a bit I think.
>
>  Ta
>
>  Andy
>
>
>  >
>  >  Regards
>  >  Richard
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  --
>  >  underscore_ list info/archive -> http://www.under-score.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/underscore
>  >
>
>  --
>  underscore_ list info/archive -> http://www.under-score.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/underscore
>