2.5 160gb 5400 sata vs 3.5 250gb 7200 usb?

[Nizhny Tagil]

I've got two hdds to spare and I'd like to know which one will perform better.
One is a WD1600BEVS recovered from a laptop (2.5, 160GB, 5400rpm, SATA), the other is external, basically an old IDE Samsung in a USB 2.0 enclosure (250GB, 7200rpm).
Thanks a lot!

 

[mcnumpty23]

desktop drive will be faster usually

but since one is sata and one ide use a drive benchmarking tool to see

 

[Eximo]

Basically the difference would be in the cache size and firmware improvements. The 2.5" drive might also have a better seek time because it is smaller, but a 7200rpm drive spins faster. That might be a toss up. If you crack open the enclosure and get the Samsung's model then we can compare spec sheets.

USB 2.0 is fast enough for any decent hard drive's max sustained read or write.

 

[mcnumpty23]

i was assuming you would use the ide in the enclosure

unless you have a way to connect an ide drive to your motherboard?

but a quick test with atto or crystal disk mark etc will tell you which is fastest

 

[Eximo]

Poked around a bit. Unless Samsung made their drives worse in two years it may actually be the faster drive, but your USB interface could slow it down over a sustained job. If you are just using it as bulk storage it is probably fine, but I wouldn't try to host an OS on it or anything.

SATA I 1.5 Gbps
ATA 133 (MB/s) (1.066 Gbps)

WD1600BEVS max sustained 97 MB/s (sequential contiguous data) (2009)
SP2514N (250 GB, 7200rpm, ATA 133) (2007) - 973 Mbps

USB 2.0 maxes out at 35 MB/s, but you aren't likely to see such high numbers in practice.

 

[Nizhny Tagil]

The mobo has one IDE port, but there's already an optical drive plugged in it.
Plus, it would be a shame to break open the USB enclosure if the difference in performance is negligible.

By the way, the drive would serve for sample storage.

EDIT: I'd also like to take into account any difference in noise and heat, because this system is for a home studio.