Does RPM or interface make more of a difference when using an external harddrive?

[Jskid]

Does RPM or interface make more of a difference when using an external hard drive? Would you rather USB 3.0 and 5400rpm or USB 2.0 and 7200rpm?

 

[Wall Street]

On a spinning platter drives, RPM and platter density matter more than interface if the drive is SATA.

 

[Cerb]

Does RPM or interface make more of a difference when using an external hard drive? Would you rather USB 3.0 and 5400rpm or USB 2.0 and 7200rpm?

I'd rather have neither, but a USB 3.0 5400RPM drive will transfer files faster than a USB 2.0 anything. USB 3.0, until you saturate it, isn't too much slower than native, while USB 2.0 is very slow to access files. If I can, I use a 100Mb network to back up files, FI, instead of a USB 2.0 drive, because it's actually faster, with all the small files in most user's profiles.

So, no, don't worry about RPM nearly as much as the interface. Density, RPM, and firmware tweaks can make a difference for the drive's performance, but USB 2.0 is a ball and chain.

 

[Jskid]

So one vote for RPM and one vote for interface?

 

[Hellhammer]

USB 2.0 = ~35MB/s in real world
USB 3.0 = ~280MB/s since the SATA to USB 3.0 bridge is most likely SATA 3Gb/s (or the actual drive is SATA 3Gb/s)

High-density (+1TB) 3.5" 5400rpm drive: ~100MB/s
High-density 3.5" 7200rpm drive: ~150MB/s

So, USB 2.0 will be the bottleneck regardless of the drive inside. Hence a USB 3.0 drive is a much better option, even if it means a 5400rpm HD.

 

[Wall Street]

On a spinning platter drives, RPM and platter density matter more than interface if the drive is SATA.

Wow, I totally didn't see "external" there. If it is external, USB 2.0 drives will be slowest regardless of RPM speed or platter density. For any other interface (eSATA, USB 3.0, Thunderbolt), throughput will be limited more by the rotation speed and platter density than by which among those interfaces is used.

 

[ShintaiDK]

USB3 matters more than 7200rpm.

 

[corkyg]

USB3 matters more than 7200rpm.

This. But, for my external drive I use eSATA. It's been mature for years and is about 5 times faster than USB 2. I don't have USB 3, and probably will not until a new computer bubbles up.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Ye, eSATA is the way to go with external HDs.

 

[BFG10K]

For external it’s the interface, by far. USB2 is really slow for I/O and even USB3 will bottleneck some things because of its extra latency over eSATA.

 

[sanityvoid]

I didn't feel like starting a new thread on this, but I have a continuation/new angle on it.

Buying a USB 3.0 external 2.5"

Which is better in this scenario?

Both USB 3.0

500 GB 7200 RPM vs. 1 TB 5400 RPM???


I'm pretty sure of the answer but I just wanted to confirm something in my brain.

Thanks for the help!!!

 

[Blain]

I didn't feel like starting a new thread on this, but I have a continuation/new angle on it.

Buying a USB 3.0 external 2.5"

Which is better in this scenario?

Both USB 3.0

500 GB 7200 RPM vs. 1 TB 5400 RPM???


I'm pretty sure of the answer but I just wanted to confirm something in my brain.

Thanks for the help!!!

If you have 600GBs of data to store, I'd pick the slower 1TB HD.

 

[corkyg]

And if you have 250GB or less data to store, I would ick 7200 RPM 500GB drive.

See - a logical case can be made either way until you nail down the assumptions.

 

[sanityvoid]

Well I guess my thoughts were going along the lines of bigger platters are somewhat faster than smaller platters but RPM speeds are a/the biggest factor. I guess I've never seen studies which say which is faster.

Larger platters or more rpm. Logically, it would seem to me that RPM rule, but I don't know.

That was really what I was wondering.

Data is not a huge factor. I don't want a monstrous external, but I was plenty sure I wanted the 2.5" factor, not 3.5". Prices get pretty crazy fast on the smaller size.

Thanks for the replies.