Edit: 80GB drive vs. 200GB

[Zucarita9000]

I'll be building my new system by the end of the year, and originally I was going to use a single Western Digital 200GB hdd. However, since I've always tried to use separate hdds (one for the OS/apps and another on for docs/media), I was thinking about getting an 80GB WD800JD for the Windows install and all other apps. For my docs and media, I'll get a big fat 200GB WD2000JD.

My question is, will the 200GB drive actually be faster than the 80GB one? If so, should I get only one drive and create two partitions?

80GB will be more than enough for Windows, apps, scratch and System Restore.

 

[Zucarita9000]

Bump

 

[Tostada]

It depends what you're doing, but for the most part it's not that big a deal separating your OS/apps from your dosc/media. Your apps are fully loaded before they try to load media. If you're dealing with massive media files, you're going to see the most improvement by encoding (or whatever you do) your massive files from one drive to a separate physical drive, but separating them from the apps/OS doesn't accomplish much. If you do a lot of extremely memory intensive stuff, you'll see the most improvement by having your OS/swapfile on a separate drive from your apps/media.

The 200GB drive will not be significanly faster than the 80GB drive. They are both modern drives with 80GB platters. WD used to deceptively sell old 80GB drives with two 40GB platters and still call them the WD800JD (since WD doesn't specify platter count in the model number), but I think this has stopped.

 

[Zucarita9000]

I'm a web/graphics designer. My new computer will be used only for work, as I don't have much time to play games. As a web developer, I'm used to be having lots and lots of apps running, such as Adobe Photoshop CS, Acrobat, Dreamweaver, several IE's, Firefox and Outlook. Sometimes, I also use Phothoshop, Illustrator and InDesign running simultaneously, and -as you can imagine- there's the ocassional lagging and window re-drawing that I happen to hate.

I'll also be getting 2GB of RAM for the new system. I plan to edit some home movies as well, and Adobe recommends having a separate hard drive for A/V, that's why I was considering an 80 giger for the OS/apps and a 200 giger for docs/media.

 

[Tostada]

Well, with 2GB of RAM you probably wouldn't notice any difference having multiple hard drives except for the video editing, then you obviously want your source and your temp files on a separate drive for that.

 

[Machine350]

If you're looking for speed, go with a 74 gb WD raptor drive to put your programs on. Then go with a 200 gb drive for data storage.

 

[Zucarita9000]

Originally posted by: Machine350
If you're looking for speed, go with a 74 gb WD raptor drive to put your programs on. Then go with a 200 gb drive for data storage.

Yes, I considered a 36GB Raptor (74 gigers are really expensive here). But I don't know if it is worth the money.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000

Originally posted by: Machine350
If you're looking for speed, go with a 74 gb WD raptor drive to put your programs on. Then go with a 200 gb drive for data storage.

Yes, I considered a 36GB Raptor (74 gigers are really expensive here). But I don't know if it is worth the money.

The 36GB Raptor is a complete waste of money. It is slower than newer 7200RPM drives. You either want the 74GB Raptor or a regular drive.

 

[Zucarita9000]

So, what you're saying is that a WD800JD would actually be faster than the 36GB Raptor? If so, I'll try to get a 74 Raptor. Is there something I should pay extra attention to (such as a rev. number)?

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
So, what you're saying is that a WD800JD would actually be faster than the 36GB Raptor? If so, I'll try to get a 74 Raptor. Is there something I should pay extra attention to (such as a rev. number)?

No that's not what he's saying at all, a WD800JD would be considered an older model drive
compared with a Raptor. The newest 200 - 300 GB drives have the advantage of greater
areal density for data than the first generation raptor drives, thus they can achieve higher
numbers on data transfer rates and throughpu overall, but the raptor would still hold a slight
edge on file access times.

 

[Vegito]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
So, what you're saying is that a WD800JD would actually be faster than the 36GB Raptor? If so, I'll try to get a 74 Raptor. Is there something I should pay extra attention to (such as a rev. number)?

No that's not what he's saying at all, a WD800JD would be considered an older model drive
compared with a Raptor. The newest 200 - 300 GB drives have the advantage of greater
areal density for data than the first generation raptor drives, thus they can achieve higher
numbers on data transfer rates and throughpu overall, but the raptor would still hold a slight
edge on file access times.

Thats what I thought too... if everything is equal, same class, same cache & same brand, a 200 should be faster than a 80. But how much ?

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
So, what you're saying is that a WD800JD would actually be faster than the 36GB Raptor? If so, I'll try to get a 74 Raptor. Is there something I should pay extra attention to (such as a rev. number)?

No that's not what he's saying at all, a WD800JD would be considered an older model drive
compared with a Raptor. The newest 200 - 300 GB drives have the advantage of greater
areal density for data than the first generation raptor drives, thus they can achieve higher
numbers on data transfer rates and throughpu overall, but the raptor would still hold a slight
edge on file access times.

Also, there are the new Maxtor SATA drives which have 16Mb of cache and NCQ enabled. Paired up with a new Intel board with ICH6 or the new nForce 4 boards, these drives give you performance very close to the Raptors without having to sacrifice storage space.

 

[Thermalrock]

ya 36gb raptor sucks. 76 raptor or better scsi.

 

[Zucarita9000]

I've been looking for prices for the 74 Gigs Raptor, and they're way too expensive for me right now. For instance, I can get a 200GB WD200JD for about $150, and the 74GB Raptor is about $250!!. No way.

I'll guess I'll try to get two 200GB drives (one for the system, on for media/docs). Altough 200GB for the system drive may be overkill, the price difference between the 200 and 120 model is only abou $10-20.

I may be able to find a 120GB for under $100 and use that for the OS/apps.

 

[Dynamix3D]

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
I've been looking for prices for the 74 Gigs Raptor, and they're way too expensive for me right now. For instance, I can get a 200GB WD200JD for about $150, and the 74GB Raptor is about $250!!. No way.

I'll guess I'll try to get two 200GB drives (one for the system, on for media/docs). Altough 200GB for the system drive may be overkill, the price difference between the 200 and 120 model is only abou $10-20.

I may be able to find a 120GB for under $100 and use that for the OS/apps.

Hey bro you can get a 74GB Raptor at Newegg.com for $182 - $25 MIR = $157...

 

[KoolDrew]

He lives in Argentina. That is why they are more expensive and newegg will do him no good.

 

[Dynamix3D]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
He lives in Argentina. That is why they are more expensive and newegg will do him no good.

woops i didnt notice that... lol

guess he's outta luck

 

[Chainzsaw]

A 200GB HD IS faster than an 80GB one.
The reason? More platters, much more dense.
Only 250GB+ drives can compete with a 74GB Raptor.

But for response times, the Raptor stomps hands down.

You say your getting 2GB of ram, yet you can't afford at least a 120GB HD?

I saw for what your doing, cut down to 1.5 or even 1GB of ram and get more HD space.

Possibly dual 200's.

But, in the end it's your choice.

GL

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
So, what you're saying is that a WD800JD would actually be faster than the 36GB Raptor? If so, I'll try to get a 74 Raptor. Is there something I should pay extra attention to (such as a rev. number)?

No that's not what he's saying at all, a WD800JD would be considered an older model drive
compared with a Raptor. The newest 200 - 300 GB drives have the advantage of greater
areal density for data than the first generation raptor drives, thus they can achieve higher
numbers on data transfer rates and throughpu overall, but the raptor would still hold a slight
edge on file access times.

Umm, no. The WD800JD has the same areal density as WD's 250GB drives.

Originally posted by: forcesho
Thats what I thought too... if everything is equal, same class, same cache & same brand, a 200 should be faster than a 80. But how much ?

A modern 80GB drive and the corresponding 200GB model are going to have almost identical performance. They are all 80GB/platter drives. The 200GB one just uses 5 heads whereas the 80GB one uses 2 heads. It's not like multiple platters can access simultaneously, so the only real difference is capacity. Actually, with more platters the seek times are usually slightly slower.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: Chainzsaw
A 200GB HD IS faster than an 80GB one.
The reason? More platters, much more dense.
Only 250GB+ drives can compete with a 74GB Raptor.

But for response times, the Raptor stomps hands down.

You say your getting 2GB of ram, yet you can't afford at least a 120GB HD?

I saw for what your doing, cut down to 1.5 or even 1GB of ram and get more HD space.

Possibly dual 200's.

But, in the end it's your choice.

GL

Where are you coming up with this crap?

How exactly does more platters mean "much more dense"? More platters just means more platters. Do you even know what density is?

 

[Zucarita9000]

Originally posted by: Chainzsaw
A 200GB HD IS faster than an 80GB one.
The reason? More platters, much more dense.
Only 250GB+ drives can compete with a 74GB Raptor.

But for response times, the Raptor stomps hands down.

You say your getting 2GB of ram, yet you can't afford at least a 120GB HD?

I saw for what your doing, cut down to 1.5 or even 1GB of ram and get more HD space.

Possibly dual 200's.

But, in the end it's your choice.

GL

No, I meant that I can't afford a 74GB Raptor plus a 200GB regular drive. I can however, get two 200GB drives.

 

[Zucarita9000]

Originally posted by: Tostada

Originally posted by: Chainzsaw
A 200GB HD IS faster than an 80GB one.
The reason? More platters, much more dense.
Only 250GB+ drives can compete with a 74GB Raptor.

But for response times, the Raptor stomps hands down.

You say your getting 2GB of ram, yet you can't afford at least a 120GB HD?

I saw for what your doing, cut down to 1.5 or even 1GB of ram and get more HD space.

Possibly dual 200's.

But, in the end it's your choice.

GL

Where are you coming up with this crap?

How exactly does more platters mean "much more dense"? More platters just means more platters. Do you even know what density is?

Actually, this does make more sense. If the WD800JD has a single 80GB platter and the WD2000JD has two or three 80GB platters, the performance should be the same as the areal density of the platters would be the same. If I can make sure that the WD800JD I get uses 80GB platters, all will be fine. A WD800JD can be found aroung here for about $90.

 

[Zucarita9000]

My options are down to these as of right now:

Western Digital WD800JD for OS/apps. 80GB, 7200rpm, 8MB buffer, SATA
Western Digital WD2000JD for docs/media. 200GB, 7200rpm, 8MB buffer, SATA

Or:

Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ST380013AS for OS/apps. 80GB, 7200rpm, 8MB buffer, SATA
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ST3200822AS for docs/media. 200GB, 7200rpm, 8MB buffer, SATA

I want hdds from the same manufacturer, so I'm gonna have to decide. I've never used Seagate drives, and Western Digital has never let me down.

 

[uOpt]

You really have to see what the basic transfer rates off the platters are. As other have pointed out, even for two drives both doing 7200 turns a minute you still don't know how much data passed under the head with each turn.

If you have harddrives with identical performance, then doing RAID-0 (striping) will be a huge performance improvement. I am doing this since 1996 and practially every system I built have sustained throughput at base_performance multiplied by number fo disks. Besides sustained throughput, random accesses with enough frequency will also speed up, but single accesses will not in RAID-0.

However, in RAID-0 you will lose all your data when you lose one disk.

RAID-5 will offer more performance than the single disk, too, but not as dramatic and it depends on more factors. It is more about safety where 3 disks can have one fail at a time and you keep your data.

But, coming back to my first sentense, before you do any of this, figure out the true base throughput, the bigger and newer drives are getting faster fast, much more so than the RPM number which stays constant would imply.

 

[Chainzsaw]

Originally posted by: Tostada

Originally posted by: Chainzsaw
A 200GB HD IS faster than an 80GB one.
The reason? More platters, much more dense.
Only 250GB+ drives can compete with a 74GB Raptor.

But for response times, the Raptor stomps hands down.

You say your getting 2GB of ram, yet you can't afford at least a 120GB HD?

I saw for what your doing, cut down to 1.5 or even 1GB of ram and get more HD space.

Possibly dual 200's.

But, in the end it's your choice.

GL

Where are you coming up with this crap?

How exactly does more platters mean "much more dense"? More platters just means more platters. Do you even know what density is?

What is your problem, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, actually, make that a parrot...
I meant by much more dense, is that it has more platters in the same amount of space.
But, usually HD makers with newer generations use LESS platters and use platters that are much more dense (100GB/platter).
So yes, I do know about density. Next time before you start blasting off your nails, know what the hell your talking about.