Which HDD with Intel's Core i5-2500?

Micro-star international / Ms-6714
March 2, 2011 at 12:48:26
Specs: Windows XP, 2.4 GHz / 1527 MB
If the biggest bottleneck on modern computers is the maximum continuous data transfer speed of the hard drives, what would be the best hard drive to use with Intel's Core i5-2500 so that it (the i5-2500) can perform at its best?

Nothing helps man to overcome troubles and to survive like the knowledge of a task to complete.


See More: Which HDD with Intels Core i5-2500?

Report •


#1
March 2, 2011 at 14:10:52
Solid State Drives (SSD) haven't quite gone mainstream yet. If you want to spend $120 or so for 60GB SSD, go right ahead. Personally, I'm going to wait until the technology has matured. I'm content running a $60 1TB "conventional" HDD.

Have a look at this article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...


Report •

#2
March 2, 2011 at 19:15:47
As mickliq said above, if you have the money to spend, go ahead. You can get reasonably faster performance with a SATAIII 6BG/S hard drive with at least 32MB buffer (I prefer the reliability and speed of the Western Digital Black series) in a 1TB capacity and you can enhance performance and recoverability by partitioning it into 3 partitions, one for your Operating System and a few primary utilities (antivirus, etc.), one for your programs, and one for your files. This will keep your access speeds up, your fragmenting down, and it will give you the ability to completely reinstall Windows without needing to reinstall programs and files. You can add a second hard drive or an external hard drive to serve as back up for your files since that is the only way to protect your work against a complete drive failure.

On a side note, IF the i5-2500K is reasonably close in price to the i5-2500, then consider it since the 'K' series is easily overclockable and the non-K line it no longer overclockable at all (outside of turbo that is).

You have to be a little bit crazy to keep you from going insane.


Report •

#3
March 2, 2011 at 20:53:59
If you have the cash, definitely get an Intel or OCZ SSD and use it as your Windows/programs drive. You can use a 1-2TB mechanical hard drive for your larger files. I used to think that SSDs were a waste of money, but that was before a buddy of mine installed an OCZ in his brand spanking new Phenom X6 1100T rig.

Windows 7 exploded on the screen before I could say "holy f**k!"

Super PIII | Unlocked ES Tualatin @ 1.8GHz (150x12, 1.65v, 512K L2)
2GB PC2700 | 500GB | Radeon x1950Pro | Apollo Pro 266T | Win 7 Pro


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
March 3, 2011 at 03:54:34
Mickliq.
In response to #1.

"If you want to spend ..."

That's a lot of money.
Thanks for the link and advice.


Jackbomb.
In response to #3.
Hi.
Thanks for your reply and advice.

“If you have the cash, definitely get ...

Windows 7 exploded on the screen before I could say "holy f**k!"”

Interesting!
If I have the cash.


Fingers.
In response to #2.

Thanks for your reply, and advice.

“... and you can enhance performance and recoverability by partitioning it into 3 partitions, one for your Operating System and a few primary utilities (antivirus, etc.), one for your programs, and one for your files. This will keep your access speeds up, your fragmenting down, and ...”

What size is a good size partition for Windows 7 alone, including defragmentation space and primary utilities (antivirus, etc.)?

“On a side note, IF the i5-2500K is reasonably close in price to the i5-2500, then consider it since the 'K' series is easily overclockable and the non-K line it no longer overclockable at all (outside of turbo that is).”

Thanks, is this suggestion only for if I want to overclock? I see the 'K' series has more power consumption, why is that?

Nothing helps man to overcome troubles and to survive like the knowledge of a task to complete.


Report •

#5
March 3, 2011 at 05:11:04
60GB is probably enough for your OS partition, but I went with 100GB since eventually you will find a program that will not offer the option (custom) to install to a different drive than C drive and updates in the future will also need room.

The 2500K also has a faster graphics (GPU) clock which will only matter if you use the on-chip graphics rather than using a separate graphics card which I believe will still be better for your uses. That is probably the reason for the higher energy usage, but this will drop on both if you are not using the graphics.

You have to be a little bit crazy to keep you from going insane.


Report •

#6
March 3, 2011 at 09:36:52
Fingers.
In response to #5.

“60GB is probably enough for ....”

Thanks.

“The 2500K also has a faster graphics (GPU) clock which will only matter if you use the on-chip graphics rather than using a separate graphics card which I believe will still be better for your uses. That is probably the reason for the higher energy usage, but this will drop on both if you are not using the graphics.”

OK. That's nice to know.

The system I want to build is to use mainly for Adobe CS5 Master Collection and Premiere and for watching videos, therefore I would need a graphics card.

If I use a graphics card, would I still benefit from the 2500K instead of the 2500?

Nothing helps man to overcome troubles and to survive like the knowledge of a task to complete.


Report •

#7
March 3, 2011 at 21:29:19
Only for the option of overclocking, that is why I said "...is reasonably close in price to the i5-2500...consider...", if it is close, it may be worth looking at seriously, if it is a lot more and you care not currently thinking about overclocking, then it may not matter to you much. Understand that with the 'unlocked multiplier', if you are looking for a little extra performance then you just up the multiplier a point or two, check the temperature you are running at, and you are done. No hassle. With the 'older' i-series, it would have been many steps and much trial and error for a modest increase. Some have reported 4GHz after 10 minutes on air cooling and 5GHz by extreme overclockers (not you or me).

You have to be a little bit crazy to keep you from going insane.


Report •

#8
March 3, 2011 at 22:42:10
Fingers.
In response to #7.
“Only for the option of ...”

OK. Thanks!

With reference to SSD's:

Mickliq, post #1.
“If you want to spend $120 or so for 60GB SSD, go right ahead.”
Fingers, post #2.
“... if you have the money to spend, go ahead.”
Jackbomb, post #3.
“If you have the cash, definitely get an Intel or OCZ SSD”

Does a SSD really perform THAT much faster than a SATAIII 6BG/S hard drive?
Would I really see a BIG difference between a SSD and a SATAIII 6BG/S in real world performance?

Nothing helps man to overcome troubles and to survive like the knowledge of a task to complete.


Report •

#9
March 4, 2011 at 05:07:46
I have not tried one myself, but it is tempting based upon what I have read. If you think about how a hard drive is made, it is like a miniature record player that uses a multiple or 2 sided disks with a single arm sweeping over its surface while it is spinning. It needs to first read where to look and then it needs to go to that sector and then it has to wait for a full revolution to see it it needs to refine its location along the disk's surface. While a solid state drive is more laid out like a giant stack of miniature RAM with solid addresses for each location. The address is called like a phone number and it responds with the data.
While $60.00 will get you a Terrabyte of data storage space with a conventional drive. For a SSD you will spend $120.00 for just your operating system and you still need a large drive for your files. That means that you will be spending three times the money to have a solid state drive and exponentially more if you wanted to try to store everything on SSD's (probably $400 - $500 for a few hundred GB, 3-4 times that for a TB). Note also that all are not 6GB/s interface yet though they are getting there.

You have to be a little bit crazy to keep you from going insane.


Report •

#10
March 4, 2011 at 05:33:22
Fingers.

In response to #9.
“... it is tempting ...”
It is.

“If you ...”
Thanks, you explained nicely.

“... and you still need a large drive for your files.”
Mmm, and one for backup.

“... they are getting there.”
I decided now that just as Mickliq wrote in #1, “I'm going to wait until the technology has matured.”

In response to #7.
"...is reasonably close in price to the i5-2500...consider..."
The price difference here between the K and the 2500 is so slight that if I can benefit from the K, I can do without a few cool drinks for the sake of it.

“..., if ... you care not currently thinking about overclocking, then it may not matter to you much. ..., if you are looking for a little extra performance then you just up the multiplier a point or two, check the temperature you are running at, and you are done. ..."

As an amateur, both in computer systems and Adobe Creative Suite, I have no real indication how the system I need to build within my budget, is going to serve my needs in real life once I get going with productions.
Therefore I cannot foresee at this stage whether or not I will come to a point in future where I may need to overclock for better performance.

So, to help make up my mind between the two, please clarify if I understood the energy usage between the two correctly:

If the higher energy usage of the K is for overclocking and using on-chip graphics, will the energy usage of the 2500K act the same as that of the 2500 if I do not overclock and do not use on-chip GPU? (In other words, during the time that I wont need overclocking and on-chip graphics, will the K use more energy than if I had the 2500?)

On a side note, I'm just curious, were they both released at the same time or is one newer than the other?

Nothing helps man to overcome troubles and to survive like the knowledge of a task to complete.


Report •

#11
March 4, 2011 at 06:13:39
It is my understanding that if you are not using the on-chip graphics then the energy use will be the same as with the regular one with out the graphics being used. Overclocking will increase energy used, but only if you use the feature, and then only to the degree of overclocking.
The very first release of the 2nd gen. i's was the i5-2400, i5-2500, i5-2500K, i7-2600, i7-2600K and I think that everyone was surprised by the K's being released immediately and so close in price. I guess the pressure to compete with AMD and stay ahead, especially with advanced users, was the deciding factor in this.

You have to be a little bit crazy to keep you from going insane.


Report •

#12
March 4, 2011 at 06:35:43
Fingers.
In response to #11.

K. I decided on the K. Thanks for suggesting it and explaining the difference!

On to graphics cards :

This is the part I feared most, because Adobe CS5 and Premiere are graphics intensive programs and one's money can only do what it can do.

Should I stick to this thread or start a new thread?

Nothing helps man to overcome troubles and to survive like the knowledge of a task to complete.


Report •

#13
March 4, 2011 at 19:55:09
I would recommend a new thread BUT not on this heading, post it under 'Digital Photo/Video', there you will find people who use the program in their work and they will be able to advise you best. Obviously you need strong graphics, but you do not want to spend a lot more than you have to, and your graphics needs are different then for gaming. In this I cannot help you, but there will be others there who can. Outline for them that you are planning on building a system primarily for CS5, and what else you may use the computer for and what you have decided on so far.

You have to be a little bit crazy to keep you from going insane.


Report •

#14
March 6, 2011 at 02:27:17
Fingers.
In response to #13 and your other posts to me.

You have been of great help. Thanks for putting me on the right track and spending time to help me come so far.

Thanks for solving this thread.

Mickliq and Jackbomb.
Thanks for contributing in solving this thread.

Nothing helps man to overcome troubles and to survive like the knowledge of a task to complete.


Report •

Ask Question