10,000 RPM HDs

[jimikim]

How come the 10k rpm HDs come in such odd numbers? Like 74GB and 36GB? While the 7200rpm HDs come in 80, 120, 160, 200, 250 etc

 

[Viper96720]

size of the platters they use

 

[gobucks]

in order to spin the disks so fast, they must use platters with a small diameter. If they used standard platters, they would shatter after some use. Unfortunately, 36.7GB is the largest amount they can fit into one of these platters. The 74GB drive contains 2 platters. I'm sure densities will go up eventually, but they will always lag substantially behind typical 7200RPM drives.

 

[rforum]

Difficult to keep data on those faster platters - it just flies off.

 

[jimikim]

Damn, you foos are smart....

Different Topic: If i have 800mhz FSB, will getting dual channel 533mhz RAM be useless? I've read 400mhz RAM go faster on 800mhz FSB than 533mhz RAM.

 

[teutonicknight]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but only if you're overclocking will it help

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: jimikim
Damn, you foos are smart....

Different Topic: If i have 800mhz FSB, will getting dual channel 533mhz RAM be useless? I've read 400mhz RAM go faster on 800mhz FSB than 533mhz RAM.

Well, Im sure they meant 533Mhz ram isnt much faster than 400 MHz ram. It would be completly useless if you don't over clock. Since the data can only transfer as fast as the CPU bus can transfer it to the RAM and back. If you over clock the CPU bus, then you will need the extra bandwidth.

 

[CQuinn]

How come the 10k rpm HDs come in such odd numbers?

They don't, they come in enterprise server numbers.

Take a look at SCSI drives. The majority of them follow the same pattern.
That's because when the market for SCSI drives on Servers was heating up, a lot of the
competing companies standardized on the same size, so they could sell their drives better
to companies that would use them in hot-swap configurations.
(When you want to swap a old drive out for a new drive of the same relative size).

When changes in the capacity allowed for bigger drives, they were made as multiples (double)
the previous standard size, so the 9.25 GB drives led to the 18.5 GB drives, which led to 36 GB,
and then to 74 GB and so on... (actually I think they started around the 4 GB ranges).

When the Raptor was first introduced, WD was trying to sell it as an alternative to SCSI drives,
so they followed the same design pattern for building capacity. It was only after they took
off in the hobbyist market that they started selling Raptor drives in retail.