Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: looking at a new purchase: SATA drives




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    790

    Default

    wow, I guess big drives ahve changed alot. The ones I worked with before were rather slow (I thought), but that was a long time ago *reminisces*. However, I really wouldnt bank arguements or opinions on benches done by tom's hardware, they have a tendency to be "inaccurate due to human error". Also, they're using an 845 board, I cant believe SATA chips havent gotten more efficient since then. Also, the raptor is much faster than the large drives in those benches that you showed, so what was the point of them :?: ? I've worked with a raptor in a comp built for a friend and I've worked with two RAID 0 set-ups (both 80GBx2 set-ups) and I can say that real world-wise, RAID 0 is def faster. Not by a ton, but its noticible. XP installed about 1-2 minutes faster, BF1942 maps load faster (much faster than 6%), large folders open quicker, PCMark2002 HDD score was higher, etc. Also its the whole price/storage ratio. $115usd for 36.7GB is not worth the same as $165usd for 160GB and better performance. Also, that RAID set up is only $20 more than than a large drive, but is much faster. I can't see myself filling up 160GB, never mind 250, so I wouldnt mind the loss in space. Also, I think those RAID benchmarks are off. The entire concept of RAID 0 is that while one drive is reading a block, the other is seeking for the next. Read times should be faster. It sounds to me like you had a bad RAID experience in the past, just MO. All in all, its all about the buyers needs, : peace2: Mista K6

    P.S. Interesting bench you found there Beefy, I knew Seagate Barracuda V drives were slower than there 7200.7 brothers, but I didnt think they were that much slower :wow: (7200.7's are usually a tad faster than Maxtors, in my experiences).
    Modified Dell 8200 Case:
    -400MHz FSB i850 Intel mobo
    -P4 Williamette Socket 478, 1.9GHz
    -768MB 16-bit PC800 RDRAM
    -MSI GF4 Ti4200 128MB @ 284/581
    -7200 RPM Maxtors: 60GB (2MB) on mobo and 160GB (8MB) on ATA/133 PCI Card
    -Creative Inspire T7700 7.1 Speaker System on an Audigy 2
    -Windows XP Home Edition SP2

    Rock on : peace2: , MiStA K6

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    However, I really wouldnt bank arguements or opinions on benches done by tom's hardware, they have a tendency to be "inaccurate due to human error".
    That happened once, I am reasonably sure that has been cleared up... Does anyone reading this still hold a negative opinion of TomsHardware?

    Also, the raptor is much faster than the large drives in those benches that you showed, so what was the point of them
    Only in Seek time... nothing else. Seek time is rarely the bottleneck of drive use. It does help alot on an badly fragmented drive though...

    BF1942 maps load faster (much faster than 6%),
    So you maintain that HD tach is wrong? And were the systems identicle?

    PCMark2002 HDD score was higher, etc
    LOL! HD Tach owns PCMark as a HD benchmark.

    I think those RAID benchmarks are off.
    Then find some that aren't.... ?

    The entire concept of RAID 0 is that while one drive is reading a block, the other is seeking for the next. Read times should be faster.
    Not really, the drives read tiny pieces of the same file in unison, and must piece together millions of tiny pieces to make a single mp3, that causes read times to be barely faster. Link

    I can't see myself filling up 160GB, never mind 250
    And when I got my second computer with a HUGE 80 MEG drive, and I had still only used 20 Meg after the first year... It was impossible to fill.

    If someone was ONLY gaming, and constantly had everything backed up, (and plenty of money) I would suggest both RAID or a Raptor... despite all their downsides.
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    539

    Default

    thanks guys for all the opinions, sorry to cause such a fuss.
    however it looks like the majority agreement is that i should get 2x 120gb setup independently, or if that cant be done, or a single 250gb drive. am i right?? :confused:

    doing some research on the onboard SATA-RAID chip it came up with this: "Dual independent DMA channels with 256B FIFO per channel." the motherboard has this chip: Silicon ImageŽ Sil 3112A

    so i take it 2x120gb 8mb's are the way to go? what i want to use it for is mass music storage/programs/movies etc...it will also be a point for my internet downloads to sit for a bit, so it would get quite fragmented. Windows/Programs/Games would be based on one of the 2 drives.
    MSN Messenger - handy481@hotmail.com
    DC++ - handy481 :: Sweden Xperience :: BootCamp 02 :: Revolution xShare 01 :: Mp3Heaven

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    790

    Default

    zeradul, I just speak from personal experience. Both of those systems I mentioned were almost identical, 512MB of CorsairLL RAM, MSI Neo2 boards, one with a 2.4C running at 3.25, one with a 2.6C running at 3.25, not much difference. Also, as far info on RAID 0, read this, its one of the most accurate descpriptions of RAID I've read http://www.raidweb.com/whatis.html .

    Anyways, people have their opinions, I can respect that. You have yours, I have mine, lets let it be :cheers: .

    Thoric, great desicion man, especially if you're going to be holding 43GB of music at the start. As I said before, I've noticed the fastest set up is using the RAID 0 set up as C, with a second drive purely as a storage drive (I'd recomend the 80GB 8MB WD you have, unless you're going to use it elsewhere) and to hold most of the page file. The RAID setup on C will make anythingo n your comp run insanely fast. Use the storage drive for long terms storage, as in files you['re just holding and almost never access. My friend, who had this set up, used it to hold large game downloads, patches, map packs, etc, but just use it for anything that isnt often accessed. Also, but the majority of your pagefile on this drive too, as the heads wont really stray much from it because your use the drive for long term storage, so access times to the page file will be faster. You'll have an insanely fast system after this man, have fun :thumb: . : peace2: Mista K6
    Modified Dell 8200 Case:
    -400MHz FSB i850 Intel mobo
    -P4 Williamette Socket 478, 1.9GHz
    -768MB 16-bit PC800 RDRAM
    -MSI GF4 Ti4200 128MB @ 284/581
    -7200 RPM Maxtors: 60GB (2MB) on mobo and 160GB (8MB) on ATA/133 PCI Card
    -Creative Inspire T7700 7.1 Speaker System on an Audigy 2
    -Windows XP Home Edition SP2

    Rock on : peace2: , MiStA K6

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3

    Default

    w00t...first post. : peace2:

    I am a firm believer in RAID. I own two Western Digital 80-gig 8MB buffer drives in a RAID0 and am planning on adding two smaller, slightly slower drives to my controller card as well. In my judement, the improvement is big enough to warrant RAID as a consideration.

    (you can all smell the HOWEVER coming) HOWEVER, Serial ATA RAID in my experience is craptacular, if it's an onboard controller. I have a A7N8X deluxe. I stopped using the RAID controller onboard and put my Serial ATA drives somewhere else when I went to ATA RAID.

    If you connect each ATA drive to it's own channel on the controller card, you will see a performance increase. There are cards that use dedicated channels (HighPoint's Model 404, IIRC) for each drive == faster.

    But I think that ATA RAID is worth it...Economy of power.
    I may be a n00b...but I know a few things...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •