• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

(Dead OOS)400GB Hitachi SATA or PATA $69.99 + Ship at the egg

D

datobin1

Member
Hmmm, I need two drives for my new build and this is tempting... 400gb for a gaming drive and 500gb for OS + Files is what I normally do but this has "only" 8mb cache so I wonder what difference I would see in game load time.
 
Originally posted by: Bulldog13
Manufacturer Warranty Length ?
Click to expand...

3-year warranty

-SATA-150 instead of SATA-300
-8mb instead of 16mb

but price/GB this is a great deal.

got one for my mediaPC, thanks OP
 
Hmmm, now I'm not so sure. At this price it's ~19 cents per gig, the 500GB WD AAKS is $99.99 with free shipping or 20 cents per gig, and it has 16mb cache and is SATA 300...

Now I don't know what to do. I'm almost debating getting both for a 400GB OS + files driver and a 500GB game drive. That would leave only the mobo and cpu to get for my new rig... or since I'm waiting anyway I can wait for a better deal on hard drives....
 
Beware of Hitachi hard drives. The company I worked for, we had a user's laptop hard drive crap out THREE times. Luckily, we bought the Lenovo 3 year warranty next business day. But just dealing with recovery is a bitch.

ALSO, I had a 250GB IDE hard drive crap out on me not once but TWICE. Crapped out once, had it replaced, died again within 3 months. I had all my porn there too.....sniff. Couldn't recovered them. Got my second replacement 2 days ago and don't know if I should even put it into service. I was about ready send the second one that died back to them and tell them NOT to send a replacement since I won't be buying Hitachi drives again.

This is all personal experience and take it with a grain of salt.
 
8mb cache was the deal breaker for me...i'd rather spend $20 more and get another 100gb(500gb), and it be 16mb cache.....
 
If you think of these HDs as cheap storage, then having 8MB cache versus 16MB is not going to make a bit of a difference. Also, can someone tell me why having a SATA 150 versus SATA 300 interface would matter if the HD's burst xfer rates don't even come close to topping 100 MB/s?
 
Originally posted by: Blessed
If you think of these HDs as cheap storage, then having 8MB cache versus 16MB is not going to make a bit of a difference. Also, can someone tell me why having a SATA 150 versus SATA 300 interface would matter if the HD's burst xfer rates don't even come close to topping 100 MB/s?
Click to expand...

They don't really and if it's just storage then your right, the 8mb vs 16mb won't make much of a difference. But when it's only a penny more per gig to get the additional cache and space it's worth it to many people. From a just storage space perspective this is a great deal.
 
Originally posted by: Blessed
If you think of these HDs as cheap storage, then having 8MB cache versus 16MB is not going to make a bit of a difference. Also, can someone tell me why having a SATA 150 versus SATA 300 interface would matter if the HD's burst xfer rates don't even come close to topping 100 MB/s?
Click to expand...

lol I remember the burst xfer rate argument really heating up on here a couple of years ago. I guess it was. It was SCSI vs SATA in head-to-head battle. I am not a true cutting edge techy but I do understand the basics of the bottleneck argument.. That said, I still have my OS on a SCSI 15K RPM U320 which is "bottlenecked" by U160 controller. I would love to be corrected if I am behind the times on this one, too, but I figure I am sitting pretty at 160 MB/s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top