Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: 10,000 RPM HDs vs 7,200 RPM HDs with SSD Cache

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011

    Default 10,000 RPM HDs vs 7,200 RPM HDs with SSD Cache

    I am planning a new build with a Core i7 3930K Sandy Bridge CPU and an X79 motherboard. Just because I do, I want it to be really fast. I am
    planning to use an ASUS motherboard that features SSD caching of HDs. I plan to install the OS and all programs on a 250 gB SSD. I am wondering
    which of two possible configurations for data storage would be faster. One is two 600 gB WD Velociraptor 10,000 RPM HDs in RAID 1. The other is
    two 750 gB 7200 RPM HDs in RAID 1 with an additional SSD cache. In either case, I will have two additional 500-1,000 gB HDs in RAID 1 for storage of large files that are not frequently accessed. If 7200 RPM HDs with an SSD cache are better, what is the optimum size for the SSD?

  2. #2
    profJim's Avatar
    profJim is offline Chief Munchkin + moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Tacoma, WA. [USA]

    Default Re: 10,000 RPM HDs vs 7,200 RPM HDs with SSD Cache

    Make sure that your ssd uses synchronous NAND memory.
    Don't even consider an ssd that uses asynchronous NAND memory.
    Check out for more information.

    Using the ssd cache feature "for storage of large files that are not frequently accessed" with a raid 1 setup sounds like overkill and unnecessary additional expense. If you really want to use this setup, try to confirm that this combination is supported and stable.

    If you new motherboard has native Intel sata3 and Marvell sata3 ports, the Intel sata3 ports will probably give you the best performance and stability. If I had this type of setup, my o/s + program ssd would connect to the Intel sata3 port, even if it meant that my raid1 data storage hard drives were NOT as fast as they might be if the hard drives were connected to the Intel sata3 ports.

    I'm not aware if Marvell finally got their act together and have sata3 hardware that is as good as or better than Intel's hardware.
    Too many issues with Marvell 6GB/s setups for too long a time. My 2 cents.
    Last edited by profJim; 12-05-2011 at 04:39 PM. Reason: minor edit
    Q9650 @ 4.10GHz [9x456MHz]
    P35-DS4 [rev: 2.0] ~ Bios: F14
    4x2GB OCZ Reaper PC2-8500 1094MHz @5-5-5-15
    MSI N460GTX Hawk Talon Attack (1GB) video card <---- SLI ---->
    Seasonic SS-660XP2 80 Plus Platinum psu (660w)
    WD Caviar Black WD6401AALS 640GB (data)
    Samsung 840 Pro 256GB SSD (boot)
    SLI @ 16/4 works when running HyperSLI
    Cooler Master 120XL Seidon push/pull AIO cpu water cooling
    Cooler Master HAF XB computer case (RC-902XB-KKN1)
    Asus VH242H 24" monitor [1920x1080]
    MSI N460GTX Hawk (1GB) video card
    Logitech Z-5500 Digital 5.1 Speakers
    win7 x64 sp1 Home Premium
    HT|Omega Claro plus+ sound card
    CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD UPS
    E6300 (R0) @ 3.504GHz [8x438MHz] ~~ P35-DS3L [rev: 1.0] ~ Bios: F9 ~~ 4x2GB Kingston HyperX T1 PC2-8500, 876MHz @4-4-4-10
    Seasonic X650 80+ gold psu (650w) ~~ Xigmatek Balder HDT 1283 cpu cooler ~~ Cooler Master CM 690 case (RC-690-KKN1-GP)
    Samsung 830 128GB SSD MZ-7PC128B/WW (boot) ~~ WD Caviar Black WD6401AALS 640GB (data) ~~ ZM-MFC2 fan controller
    HT|Omega Striker 7.1 sound card ~~ Asus VH242H monitor [1920x1080] ~~ Logitech Z-5500 Digital 5.1 Speakers
    win7 x64 sp1 Home Premium ~~ CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD U.P.S

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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