going from 3GB > 4GB and 5400 > 7200

TigerUK · 11 May 2011 at 04:27

I just bouhgt a CULV laptop for light desktop application work and internet surfing, unfortunately it came with 3GB ram and a 5400rpm hard drive, which is a bummer because I've seen several models that come with the upgrades installed, I guess I got a bad deal.

I was wondering whether there would be any noticeable performance improvement from both, or just one.

I've seen my desktop CPU/RAM performance widget regularly use RAM around the 2.5GB mark, so I'm not sure if 4GB will mean that computer will utilise more of it.

Also I'm not sure if a faster rpm hard drive will give a decent performance boost? My main priority is mobility, and if a faster hard drive is going to give me 10 seconds faster boot, but then 30m reduction in battery life, from the 6 hours current battery life. Then that's not really a sacrifice that I'm willing to make.

Werewolf · 11 May 2011 at 04:43

If you go to 4gb of ram you'll probably need to install the x64 version of windows to get the laptop to be able to use the extra ram (I'm guessing it's got the 32bit version installed which can only handle 4gb in total including everything like video ram).
The 7,200rpm drive may make things a little faster but will probably cost a fair chunk and almost certainly use more power than the 5,400 drive.

Personally unless you really need the extra speed and memory for programmes I would probably leave it as is

SupermotoMX · 11 May 2011 at 04:44

you need to state what HDD you have in there currently, or if you read the sticker you should see max power usage, then compair it to the 7200 drive, i doubt it will make more than 10 -15min on battery life.

if you want a performance boost go SSD.. it uses even less power so you might even gain abit more battery life, and also has read/write MUCH faster than a mechanical... not to mention it puts out no heat.

Stoner81 · 11 May 2011 at 05:42

Werewolf said:
If you go to 4gb of ram you'll probably need to install the x64 version of windows to get the laptop to be able to use the extra ram (I'm guessing it's got the 32bit version installed which can only handle 4gb in total including everything like video ram).
The 7,200rpm drive may make things a little faster but will probably cost a fair chunk and almost certainly use more power than the 5,400 drive.

Personally unless you really need the extra speed and memory for programmes I would probably leave it as is

+1

Stoner81.

Kaeo · 11 May 2011 at 06:15

For what you've said you're gonna use it for, you honestly wont see much of a difference at all changing either of them.

olivier renault · 11 May 2011 at 09:39

Not much gain 3 -> 4GB, especially on a compact CULV (where you wouldn't do power hungry stuff in the first place).

some noticeable gain when going 5,400 -> 7,200 HD.

A lot more noticeable gain HD -> SSD.

Got a 120GB Samsung PJ22-B in my UL30A and it flies. Really a great match. So much so that I never actually bothered with the hard drive at all. It's all at factory default

Note that it's a relatively slow SSD as well. A OCZ Vertex 120 at £150 or a Vertex 60GB at £80 would be my choice (Automated Garbage Collection for peace of mind). Factor in 35GB-40GB for the OS, updates, swap file and the essentials.

Pleasantly surprised I could re-install everything using a DVD of Win 7 Home Premium Retail, and the windows key from under the laptop. That is not guaranteed to always work.

TigerUK · 11 May 2011 at 20:32

I figured that because 3GB ram is uneven match, and ram makers are always saying to pair them with identical sticks, a 2Gb stick and a 1Gb stick wouldn't perform so well.

I never liked the idea of SSD, due to the stuff I've read about certain bytes degrading over time due to being written and rewritten over and over again.

Tonester007 · 11 May 2011 at 20:59

TigerUK said:
I figured that because 3GB ram is uneven match, and ram makers are always saying to pair them with identical sticks, a 2Gb stick and a 1Gb stick wouldn't perform so well.

I never liked the idea of SSD, due to the stuff I've read about certain bytes degrading over time due to being written and rewritten over and over again.

The OCZ Vertex II has a "Mean Time Before Failure" of 2 million hours.
If you used your drive every day, for ten hours a day, it should last over 500 years

http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-vertex-2-sata-ii-2-5-ssd.html

TigerUK · 13 May 2011 at 22:03

I have installed the new RAM, and gained a whopping 8 seconds ooff the boot time.. So now from 67 seconds, it has come down to 59.. probably nothing to boast about. But since so many people say that RAMs need to be matched in order to work efficiently, it seems like a cheap upgrade to get a nice even 4GB.

Still debating on SSDs, one thing I read was that the power savings could be a myth.

However it's probably impossible to say for sure, the reason being, SSDs work faster so when running benchmarking tests that routely process data to test the hard drive power usage. What tends to happen is that the SSD can process more data, hus requires more engagement by the CPU. Whether as a slower mechanical drive can process data slower, therefore the CPU isn't as often utilised.

So the power changes/improvements using benchmarking software to test SSD vs HDD is flawed and the only real way to find out which uses more power is to carry on using your laptop from full charge to zero, doing your regulalry every day tasks, and repeat the process 3 or 4 times to get a mean time, and compare it with mechanical vs SSD to soo which allows the battery to last longer.

Krislord · 13 May 2011 at 22:24

TigerUK said:
I have installed the new RAM, and gained a whopping 8 seconds ooff the boot time.. So now from 67 seconds, it has come down to 59.. probably nothing to boast about. But since so many people say that RAMs need to be matched in order to work efficiently, it seems like a cheap upgrade to get a nice even 4GB.

Still debating on SSDs, one thing I read was that the power savings could be a myth.

However it's probably impossible to say for sure, the reason being, SSDs work faster so when running benchmarking tests that routely process data to test the hard drive power usage. What tends to happen is that the SSD can process more data, hus requires more engagement by the CPU. Whether as a slower mechanical drive can process data slower, therefore the CPU isn't as often utilised.

So the power changes/improvements using benchmarking software to test SSD vs HDD is flawed and the only real way to find out which uses more power is to carry on using your laptop from full charge to zero, doing your regulalry every day tasks, and repeat the process 3 or 4 times to get a mean time, and compare it with mechanical vs SSD to soo which allows the battery to last longer.

You've already got 6 hours battery life, don't worry about whether an SSD will improve battery life and consider its other benefits

Sin_Chase · 13 May 2011 at 23:28

5400 is not that much of a performance drop from 7200 in real world terms these days tbh.

The density of 2.5" laptop platters means a 5400RPM drive is fast enough. Not something I would do JUST for the RPM change, if you needed more capacity anyway..fair enough.

Ch3m1c4L · 14 May 2011 at 11:32

TigerUK said:
I have installed the new RAM, and gained a whopping 8 seconds ooff the boot time.. So now from 67 seconds, it has come down to 59.. probably nothing to boast about. But since so many people say that RAMs need to be matched in order to work efficiently, it seems like a cheap upgrade to get a nice even 4GB.

Still debating on SSDs, one thing I read was that the power savings could be a myth.

However it's probably impossible to say for sure, the reason being, SSDs work faster so when running benchmarking tests that routely process data to test the hard drive power usage. What tends to happen is that the SSD can process more data, hus requires more engagement by the CPU. Whether as a slower mechanical drive can process data slower, therefore the CPU isn't as often utilised.

So the power changes/improvements using benchmarking software to test SSD vs HDD is flawed and the only real way to find out which uses more power is to carry on using your laptop from full charge to zero, doing your regulalry every day tasks, and repeat the process 3 or 4 times to get a mean time, and compare it with mechanical vs SSD to soo which allows the battery to last longer.

In both my laptops I have replaced drives, one had two toshiba 5400 drigves, one had a seagate momentus. I put a C300 + 300gb spinpoint 7200 in the dell and a vertex 2e in the samsung.

Neither has changed its battery like by more than a few minutes, and since that is easily dependent on usage, it may not have changed it at all really.