View Full Version : Hmmm, which is better?

Hog Wild Overcl
01-29-2003, 10:43 AM
Tomorrow I am buying two harsd drives at 60 GB each. I have a Gigabyte 8PE667 ultra with raid. I;m going to set it up to stripe the two disk drives, but I can't decide which to but. Ahould I buy the ATA133 with a 2MB cache, or the neat little ATA100 with 8MB of cache? I'm leaning towards to 133, but thought I would go and ask the experts. All reccomendations welcome.

01-29-2003, 10:51 AM
ATA100 with 8mb cache
The difference between ata 100 and 133 is very little.
But the WD 80gb with 8mb fly they are great drives.

01-29-2003, 11:08 AM
i agree with nutty..the difference between ata100 and ata133 is more of a marketing ploy than real performance...you will be much happier with the 8 MB cache

01-29-2003, 11:16 AM
ATA133 is only a farse anyway as ATA66 specs are only just recently being proved inadequated for WD JB's (8MB cache) which are the best and fastest drives available (Maxtor's ATA133 hype is to get the numb nuts that think bigger is better to by them). :hmph:

< /rant>

So ATA100 is all ya have to worry about. ;)

Hog Wild Overcl
01-31-2003, 06:47 AM
okay, okay...the clan has spoken. Tomorrow (couldn't get out of work early today) I buy the western digitals.

Since we are on the subject of raid...Where does everybody realize the GREATEST improvement in performance. Is it game playing? Graphics design? Web surfing (J/K) or encoding music/graphics? Benchmark points?