• evidences@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think the SSD uses more power than the original hard drives do. I bought an adapter for the iPod classic to put an SD card in it and there was a few articles about power draw being higher for ssds. I might be misremembering the comparison though, it’s been a couple years.

    • Welt@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Wow, that’s really surprising, you’d think a spinning platter would draw more power than solid state transistors

      • evidences@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s kind of surprising but not super surprising if you’ve ever seen the stock drive in them. The hard drives in the classic are tiny, 1.8inch 4200rpm units. Power draw on the drive case is half an amp at 3.3v. SSDs are like 5 watts plus whatever circuitry you need to convert the interfaces.

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        If I recall correctly, it was a special made spindle that could handle many spin ups and downs, and they used a massive 10 minute buffer so it loads up the buffer and spins down.

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      That may be due to other factors. I will be up front that I don’t have a lot of specifics, but I do know this: in retro computing, SD is hard to implement as a replacement for old-school disks because it means a lot of overhead. For that reason, Compact Flash is still the preferred format for a lot of products aimed at that space.

      Perhaps that is at play here, because increased overhead should also equal a reduction in battery life (modulo the spinning disk).