2.5" vs 3.5" drive speeds

[consoleconvergence2pc]

I want a hdd to put at the back of mobo tray on the r4 so was thinking of getting the 2.5" 1tb laptop hdd

Both laptop/desktop drives are the same price and both are western digital

Any performance difference in a laptop vs desktop hdd both 7200rpm

 

[nixproducer]

i do not think that it would be a good idea because a hard drive has moving parts and that is why it cant be mounted on the back, and a SSD does not have moving parts and that is why they are SSD mounts

(i may be wrong, feel free to correct me if i am)

[shouldervalley]

if they have the same specs othervise they should be the same

[IdeaStormer]

i do not think that it would be a good idea because a hard drive has moving parts and that is why it cant be mounted on the back, and a SSD does not have moving parts and that is why they are SSD mounts

(i may be wrong, feel free to correct me if i am)

 

No, they can be placed at any angle or orientation (spinning HDD's) its all been proven to be a non factor. Heck in fileservers the drives are on their side, some they sit on their connectors, and yes some even have them flat on their proper bottom.

 

To the OP, the best qualifier for a drive are its specs, read up at the company website and compare the drives specs to see what is what.

[Ertman]

if they have the same specs othervise they should be the same

I assume you mean same spec (2.5 and 3.5) = same performance. This is not exactly true. Given the same platter density and rotational speeds the 3.5 inch drive will allow for faster transfer rates (EDIT : Maximum) as the outer edge of the 3.5 inch would be moving faster than the outer edge on the 2.5 inch drive. The 3.5 drive also has less power and performance restrictions (EDIT: due to application - not program -  specific tuning) which can hinder 2.5 top speed.

 

 

EDIT: This does not include benefits (if they exist on a particular drive) of 2.5 drives such as seek time etc., but this is why it is a discussion forum. Eitherway the performance differences are negligible and less relevant due to changing technology. Also not noted is the increased buffer found in most 3.5" solutions.

[wng_kingsley7]

2.5" hard drives/solid state drives have the convenience of being quite thin. Not much difference just a difference in size.

I would prefer to have a SSD mounted sideways because most hdd caddys aren't designed that way.

[shouldervalley]

I assume you mean same spec (2.5 and 3.5) = same performance. This is not exactly true. Given the same platter density and rotational speeds the 3.5 inch drive will allow for faster transfer rates as the outer edge of the 3.5 inch would be moving faster than the outer edge on the 2.5 inch drive. The 3.5 drive also has less power and performance restrictions which can hinder 2.5 top speed.

that's true but it doesn't make too much differnce

[Ertman]

that's true but it doesn't make too much differnce

it's more than measurable, but not significant enough to be necessarily noticeable. So I will agree.

[shouldervalley]

it's more than measurable, but not significant enough to be necessarily noticeable. So I will agree.

what I meant is if he want to have one as a storage drive it's not enough to say that it's a bad idea. but I can't argue with physics either 

[ultimatemythbuster]

i do not think that it would be a good idea because a hard drive has moving parts and that is why it cant be mounted on the back, and a SSD does not have moving parts and that is why they are SSD mounts

(i may be wrong, feel free to correct me if i am)

It doesn't really matter what orientation the HDD is in.  As long as it is well secured, it should be fine on the back of the tray.

[IdeaStormer]

I assume you mean same spec (2.5 and 3.5) = same performance. This is not exactly true. Given the same platter density and rotational speeds the 3.5 inch drive will allow for faster transfer rates as the outer edge of the 3.5 inch would be moving faster than the outer edge on the 2.5 inch drive. The 3.5 drive also has less power and performance restrictions which can hinder 2.5 top speed.

 

:blink:

 

There is so much wrong information in your post, I think instead of listing them you should re-write your post.

 

:rolleyes:

[Ertman]

:blink:

There is so much wrong information in your post, I think instead of listing them you should re-write your post.

:rolleyes:

Not much was said, but always willing to learn, PM'd.

 

Update: While my contribution was overly simplified and does not take into account other factors, as it was not suppose to, the above poster was massively overstating their position and is unjustified in their opinion.