Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: HDD speed differences

  • Subject: Re: HDD speed differences
  • From: andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com (Andrew MacPherson)
  • Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 13:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
  • Newsgroups: uk.comp.sys.laptops
  • References: <62lNd.113$rG4.60@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>
  • Reply-to: andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk uk.comp.sys.laptops:43149
In article <62lNd.113$rG4.60@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, 
dennisnospam_pogson@ntlworld.com (Dennis Pogson) wrote:

> Surely games are memory-driven, so the
> HD seek times are irrelevant?

A faster HD will speed up loading times a little, obviously. But unless 
someone's particularly impatient when starting up a game, loading new 
levels, etc, then more RAM will always be far more important than HD 
speed when actually gaming.

I'm assuming the proposed laptop will have at least 512Mb. Personally I'd 
dump the second HD (assuming recordable CD/DVD backup and no pressing need 
for RAID mirroring of critical data) and push the RAM to 1Gb. 1Gb just 
gives you so much more elbow room when running greedy apps like modern 

I'd also be more concerned about HD heat than speed, especially with two 
drives onboard. When gaming, the video chipset on a fast, modern laptop is 
chucking out a *lot* of heat in a small space, and a slower HD ought 
(ought!) to run cooler and contribute less to the overall heat footprint. 
That has to be a good thing when the system's being pushed to the edge of 
its performance envelope regularly.

Andrew McP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index