7200 RPM/64MB cache vs. 10K RPM/16MB cache?

[Overkast77]

Hi all,

I want to replace my Windows boot drive but not looking to spend a fortune on SSD. Looking for something with more capacity but still has decent performance.

I was considering one of the 10K Raptors (either 150GB or 300GB) b/c I've had the 36GB model for years and love it, but then I've been hearing the 7200 RPM models with high cache like 32MB or 64MB are still pretty fast and they're a lot cheaper for when you get in capacity.

Any thoughts? I'm not concerned about benchmarks so much, I just don't want to feel like my machine is running that much slower than if it were installed on a 10K drive.

Thanks

 

[f4phantom2500]

seriously dude reconsider an ssd. a mechanical hard drive is by far the single largest bottleneck of a modern computer regarding non-bandwidth limited devices (CD/DVD drives, USB devices...). if you're fine with the capacity of your current drive i'd suggest getting a decently sized ssd for your OS and main apps, then keeping everything else on your other drive. i just picked up a 64GB sandforce 1222 based ssd from newegg for $115 for a new computer for my parents, and they're getting cheaper all the time. it's definitely a decision i don't regret; aside from the ssd and a new psu, the computer is completely reused parts. athlon 64 x2 3600 (1.9ghz), 2gb ram, and the ssd, compared to my computer, athlon ii x3 435, 4gb ram, WD caviar green 640gb raid 0 array (iirc, these drives are actually faster than the 500gb caviar blues), and their system is much more responsive than mine...granted mine's been running the same windows 7 install for a good year and theirs has been running for a couple of days...but whatever you do don't get a raptor.

of course the other option is to get two fast 7200rpm hard drives (caviar black, etc), and run them in raid 0. itll be faster than one drive but...its no ssd...

 

[Overkast77]

if you're fine with the capacity of your current drive i'd suggest getting a decently sized ssd for your OS and main apps, then keeping everything else on your other drive. i just picked up a 64GB sandforce 1222 based ssd from newegg for $115 for a new computer for my parents, and they're getting cheaper all the time.

Actually, I'm not satisfied with my current capacity, primarily because of how Microsoft has designed the Windows 7 OS to use the ever-expanding Winsxs folder. My Winsxs folder is already 15GB large, taking up half my drive. It's nonsense. And I'm not even that confident a 64GB SSD will be sufficient over the long-haul the way this gluttonous folder works.

So I'm basically trying to plan for overkill here on capacity to suffice the Winsxs beast, while not paying a fortune in SSD to do it.

 

[hclarkjr]

HD Tune Pro: WDC WD2001FASS-00U0B Benchmark

Test capacity: full

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 68.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 142.2 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 111.5 MB/s
Access Time : 11.8 ms
Burst Rate : 215.0 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%
those numbers are from a western digitial black 2TB which has 64mb of cache. fast and big, i have a velociraptor and those numbers are about equal to it.

 

[Emulex]

wow that latency is insanely high

 

[f4phantom2500]

yeah well if your only criteria is that it performs well in relation to the velociraptors, then a single big, high performance drive (like the caviar black) may be enough for you. the "problem" with the velociraptors is that their capacity is so low relative to more modern drives that the newer drives actually perform comparably well to them, while having larger capacities, since the higher capacity gives these drives a higher areal data density. this means that the head doesn't have to travel as far to access data, so even though its "only" 7200 rpm, the 10k drive actually has more distance to cover.

over the years i've read quite positive, but also not-quite-so positive, things about the performance benefits of a raid 0 array, but i've never done a completely equal test myself to find out (running a raid array on 2 identical drives vs running a single one of the same drives [or a single drive from the same series that is double the capacity of the 2 in the raid array]). however, most people that haven't used an ssd would probably be quite happy with a single caviar black.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...scrollFullInfo

that looks like a really good deal...apparently it's a 2TB WD black with 1 bad platter, so they disabled it and are selling it as a 1.5TB drive instead. the cool thing about that is that it's about 55% the price of the 2TB drive while offering 75% the storage and, if what i read about it being a defunct 2TB drive is true, would offer the same performance as a 2TB black, which, iirc, is one of, if not the, highest performing 7200 rpm hdd's available due to the very high areal density (4 platters in the 2TB version, so 512GB/platter).