The Natural Philosopher  wrote:
> On 17/12/2020 01:47, bob prohaska wrote:
>> Last I checked SSDs were a little worse for power consumption, but
>> that was months ago and I don't know where the trend is going.
>
> This spec
>
https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/publi
c/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-blue-ssd/data-sheet-wd-blue-3d-nan
d-sata-
> ssd-2879-800092.pdf?_ga=2.57708201.28239759.1543588356-1527752628.1543588356
>
> gives operational power on a SSD of ~3-4 watts and idle power 56mw. In
> most applications due to the high read and write speed the operational
> times will be very short.
>

That spec sheet is truly impressive. The prices are still a little higher
than mechanical drives at 1TB, maybe 2X, but much better than I expected.
Sustained write powers close to 4W in an m.2 package do give some pause....




>
https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/publi
c/western-digital/product/internal-drives/wd-black-hdd/data-sheet-wd-black-pc-h
ard-drives-2879-771434.pdf?_ga=2.57708201.28239759.1543588356-1527752628.154358
8356
>
> shows far higher figures for read write and idle...

True, but a little unfair, those are 7200 RPM 3.5 inch drives.
Still, it's implausible that a 2.5 inch 5400 RPM drive can
come close to the figures for SSD unless the spindle stops.

Oddly enough, this brings me back to the dilemma of finding an
enclosure that interfaces to USB3 with support for UASP and TRIM.

Thanks for rattling my cage, it looks like an SSD is worth a look.

bob prohaska

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05