Which is better in performance An Internal HDD 1TB or An External HDD 1TB? for Desktop PC

[bp8401363]

I am looking for a Hard Drive and I want to know which is better Internal HDD or External HDD?
Is there any Performance Difference Between Them?

 

[Boogieman_WD]

Well that depends on the drive's specs, but in most cases I'd say that the internal HDDs beat the external drives, especially if you are talking about a portable external drive. I know that you're asking about performance, but generally the internal HDDs are a lot more reliable than external ones, which would considerably turn the scales in their favor if you're wondering what to get.
As for the performance, if you give me a bit more info or if you're looking at specific drives, I'd be able to give you a more definite answer.

Hope that helps.
Boogieman_WD

 

[bp8401363]

Well that depends on the drive's specs, but in most cases I'd say that the internal HDDs beat the external drives, especially if you are talking about a portable external drive. I know that you're asking about performance, but generally the internal HDDs are a lot more reliable than external ones, which would considerably turn the scales in their favor if you're wondering what to get.
As for the performance, if you give me a bit more info or if you're looking at specific drives, I'd be able to give you a more definite answer.

Hope that helps.
Boogieman_WD

Here it is
EXTERNAL HDD: Samsung M3 1TB portable USB 3.0 Hard Drive
INTERNAL HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1 TB Desktop Internal Hard Drive (ST1000DM003)

 

[Phillip Corcoran]

SATA beats USB performance any day of the week, irrespective of the drive spec.
Another consideration - - external hard drives have proved to be less reliable than internal ones, across all brands.

 

[Boogieman_WD]

Just as @Phillip and I mentioned - you wouldn't go wrong with the internal drive when it comes to performance and reliability compared to an external one.

 

[Paperdoc]

Fully agree with the other two posters. Some FYI stuff to help understand.

SATA is a fast interface - faster than USB2 by quite a bit. USB3, however, has removed that difference IF you really do have a USB3 port on your machine to connect to.

However, virtually ALL "portable" external drives designed for use with laptops etc. are based on using SLOWER HDD units inside to limit their power consumption. They are slower mostly because they rotate at 5400 rpm. Some also shut themselves down when not used for a while, and need to spin up to speed again when accessed. The internal unit you specified is like most internal HDD's (except the "green" ones) and runs at 7200 rpm with no "spin-down" behavior.

Another consideration you did not mention: price. Typically (and also in your case) an internal HDD is less expensive than an external for the same storage capacity. Combine with superior performance with an internal, and the choice is clear.

 

[bp8401363]

Fully agree with the other two posters. Some FYI stuff to help understand.

SATA is a fast interface - faster than USB2 by quite a bit. USB3, however, has removed that difference IF you really do have a USB3 port on your machine to connect to.

However, virtually ALL "portable" external drives designed for use with laptops etc. are based on using SLOWER HDD units inside to limit their power consumption. They are slower mostly because they rotate at 5400 rpm. Some also shut themselves down when not used for a while, and need to spin up to speed again when accessed. The internal unit you specified is like most internal HDD's (except the "green" ones) and runs at 7200 rpm with no "spin-down" behavior.

Another consideration you did not mention: price. Typically (and also in your case) an internal HDD is less expensive than an external for the same storage capacity. Combine with superior performance with an internal, and the choice is clear.

What if I have to select between and External HDD with Usb 3.0 and Internal HDD with Sata 2 (3gb/sec)
or
External HDD with Usb 3.0 and Internal HDD with Sata 3 (6gb/sec)
then which is good?

 

[Boogieman_WD]

Even though the interface allows those type of speeds, no HDD can take advantage of them. A regular 7200 RPM HDD wouldn't max out the SATA 2 speed and it won't be bottlenecked by it. As already mentioned the SATA connection and internal drives are just a lot more reliable than external drives and USB connections.

 

[Sp00kie]

SATA is technically faster but USB 3.0 is plenty fast so it won't bottleneck a hdd...any hdd. In practice, the only reason you might experience a slower external HDD drive is if it uses a cheap USB/SATA controller but I have never had that happen in my experience.

 

[Paperdoc]

The last two SATA systems are labeled "SATA 3 Gb/s" and "SATA 6 Gb/s"; the newest USB3 system is capable of about 5 Gb/s. So based only on those numbers, which is faster and "better" is clear.

Now her comes the big BUT:

In all 3 cases, those are the specs for the MAXIMUM data transfer rate that the COMMUNICATION part of the overall system can do. They have been designed deliberately so that this part of the systems will NOT limit overall performance because the COMMUNICATION part is the fastest component. It turns out, though, that when dealing with mechanical hard drives (the ones with spinning disks and moving heads), those mechanical components limit the real average data transfer rates to somewhere between 1.5 to 2.0 Gb/s The heads and disks just can't move faster! So the new system designs for the COMMUNICATION subsystems are working! But in fact, the real data transfer rates for all of those three interfaces when used with conventional hard drives is the same because it is set by the DISK, not by the comm subsystem! With the most current technology, the only common storage device that can exceed 3 Gb/s, but still is slower than 5 Gb/s, is a good SSD - Solid State Drive - that has NO moving parts.

So, OP, for your original question the answer remains: your best choice is an internal HDD. Whether it is called SATA 3 Gb/s or SATA 6 Gb/s will make no difference in real performance.