Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My HP dv6000 laptop has WD1600BEVS (SATA-I, 160GB, 8MB Buffer, 150 Mbps) hard-dive. I need to upgrade the hard-drive and I am planning for a SATA-II hybrid hard-drive. I have two options -

  1. Seagate ST1000LM014 SSHD (1TB, 5400RPM, 64MB Cache, 6Gb/s, 8GB SSD)
  2. Seagate Momentus XT ST750LX003 SSHD (750 GB, 7200RPM, 32MB Cache,6Gb/s, 8GB SSD)

The former has has lower RPM but higher packing density. But the latter has more RPM but lower packing density. Theoretically, there shouldn't be much difference between the number of sectors covered by the R/W head per unit of time, and hence the amount of data read/written per unit of time (practically, I am not very sure). The former has more cache and is about $10 costlier than the latter (as on Amazon).

Which hard-drive should I go with in terms of performance?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Bobby, Journeyman Geek, Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007, Hennes, Tog Jun 3 '13 at 18:40

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Interesting trade off. Which is better, more cache RAM or more spindle RPM?

The 8GB SSD pretty much functions as an "L2 cache" in these units, which is going to mask the slower access speed of the 5400RPM somewhat in the first drive. It also has more cache RAM.

Unless your disk usage pattern is heavy continuous random file I/O, like running a well-used database, I would choose the ST1000LM014.

Consider also that slower RPM drives consume less power and are less prone to head crashes when moved.

share|improve this answer
You are right. My usage pattern is mostly random, considering that I mostly work on application development programs (a dozen of them, most frequently). I would be using sequential read/write only when I transfer movies or songs from laptop HDD to portable HDD and vice-versa, which I don't do very frequently. And yes, consumption of less power and less chances of head-crash are important as I frequently 'move' laptop, in on condition, from one location to another, with-in house though. – kush.impetus Jun 2 '13 at 16:39

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .