I've been reading some reviews on the WD 80, 120 and 200GB with 8MB cache and seems like the larger the drive the faster it is. Can someone explain to me why? Which of the three should I buy? Are these drives just as fast as SATA?
Hardrives, the bigger the better?
- Thread starter moejr
- Start date
I belive it is because more information can fit closer and closer together on the actaul physical disk. not sure though I would like to know as well.
The platter density is very high. Thus read and write will be easier becaues you dont have to spin as far to read or write.
Being SATA or not has nothing to do with it, thats just an interface.
Being SATA or not has nothing to do with it, thats just an interface.
The only SATA drive worth getting is one of WD 360GD Raptor drive. It is the highest performance IDE hard drive, but is only 36GB. If you have the money I would recommend getting 1 or 2 WD360GD's and RAID 0 them if you can, then get a WD250JB as the storage drive. Now that setup sounds yummy:beer:
pillage2001
Lifer
- Sep 18, 2000
- 14,038
- 1
- 81
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
You are largely correct. There are 2 reasons: larger drives often (but not always) have higher density platters. Every WD 240GB drive has 80GB platters but some of their 40GB drives may still have 40GB platters. Also, having more platters means you don't have to move the arms as far in order to traverse a certain number of megs/gigs.
Originally posted by: dexvx
Actually, Raided 15K rpm SCSI is the best choice
I don't know how much of a difference you would see compared to the cost. I just got a Raptor and it is awesome. When the price comes down a bit I am going to pick up another.
Not a lot. I've been die-hard SCSI since the very early 90's. Back in the days of IDE and PIO, there used to be a hell of a performance advantage to SCSI.
For example, my P133 and PPro200 rigs were built using IDE, then went to SCSI (Adaptec 2940UW and 9gb UW drives), between 1996-98. The difference was noticeable. Very. O/S and games loaded quicker, system more responsive.
IDE drives were slower - I dont mean the just the interface, but the drive seek times, etc. System tests showed this as well.
With the advent of DMA, DMA2, uDMA, and so forth, ATA drives started to catch up. Seagate at al improved the drive specs, faster drives appeared (ok, this is now compressing several years of technology into a sentence!).
What are we left? Well, SCSI is still the superior technology, for example multitasking devices, disconnect/reconnect, 255 commands, command overlap etc etc. ATA still has limitations in these areas, and both - although havign wonderful bandwidth claims - are limited by the physical drive tx rates.
Which is where IDE starts to score... as it is a single tasking disk subsystem, the SCSI advantages are negated in a single user box. In a server it's a different story, multiple users and multiple concurrent requests show the SCSI advantage; IDE would be overwhelmed.
But in a single user systsem? Well, booting Windows in a SCSI system in theory can benefit from SCSI command overlap (disk read/writes can be optimised on the bus, for example). But loading a game or an MP3? Very, very little difference.
About 12-18months ago I started using IDE again. Built a games rif, and used the mobo RAID 0 with two IBM drives. And it flies. All my workstations use SCSI, (RAID 5 for integrity). I built a RAID 0 SCSI box, and benched it against the IDE system. Not scientiffically, but subjectively. To be honest, there was no real difference between the two.
I only have one 15K drive - yes, its fast. But it cost a bomb. The others are all 10K drives. I really cant justify the expense of 15K drives, not when I factor in how much I have to spend to build a 200gb array (at least 3 disks in RAID0, 6 in RAID1), against an IDE system - 1 disk, or 2 disks RAID0 (or hell, two 200gb drives RAID 1 for resiliency).
I hate to admit it, but IDE is the better option now, on a cost/capacity/peformance basis, and even more so when one removes performance.
Just my tuppence worth. Of course, if I won the lottery, every PC would be dual u320 controllers, each with RAID0 arrays of 15K drives, with the RAID arrays themselves mirrored (speed and resiliency!).
Brgds
Alan
For example, my P133 and PPro200 rigs were built using IDE, then went to SCSI (Adaptec 2940UW and 9gb UW drives), between 1996-98. The difference was noticeable. Very. O/S and games loaded quicker, system more responsive.
IDE drives were slower - I dont mean the just the interface, but the drive seek times, etc. System tests showed this as well.
With the advent of DMA, DMA2, uDMA, and so forth, ATA drives started to catch up. Seagate at al improved the drive specs, faster drives appeared (ok, this is now compressing several years of technology into a sentence!).
What are we left? Well, SCSI is still the superior technology, for example multitasking devices, disconnect/reconnect, 255 commands, command overlap etc etc. ATA still has limitations in these areas, and both - although havign wonderful bandwidth claims - are limited by the physical drive tx rates.
Which is where IDE starts to score... as it is a single tasking disk subsystem, the SCSI advantages are negated in a single user box. In a server it's a different story, multiple users and multiple concurrent requests show the SCSI advantage; IDE would be overwhelmed.
But in a single user systsem? Well, booting Windows in a SCSI system in theory can benefit from SCSI command overlap (disk read/writes can be optimised on the bus, for example). But loading a game or an MP3? Very, very little difference.
About 12-18months ago I started using IDE again. Built a games rif, and used the mobo RAID 0 with two IBM drives. And it flies. All my workstations use SCSI, (RAID 5 for integrity). I built a RAID 0 SCSI box, and benched it against the IDE system. Not scientiffically, but subjectively. To be honest, there was no real difference between the two.
I only have one 15K drive - yes, its fast. But it cost a bomb. The others are all 10K drives. I really cant justify the expense of 15K drives, not when I factor in how much I have to spend to build a 200gb array (at least 3 disks in RAID0, 6 in RAID1), against an IDE system - 1 disk, or 2 disks RAID0 (or hell, two 200gb drives RAID 1 for resiliency).
I hate to admit it, but IDE is the better option now, on a cost/capacity/peformance basis, and even more so when one removes performance.
Just my tuppence worth. Of course, if I won the lottery, every PC would be dual u320 controllers, each with RAID0 arrays of 15K drives, with the RAID arrays themselves mirrored (speed and resiliency!).
Brgds
Alan
1)the higher the platter density or the higher the amount of GB's that can be put into 1 platter, the higher the performance(average and burst transfer rates)
2)the higher the hd speed, the lower the access time and higher transfer rates
3)bigger buffers help burst transfer rates, like transferring small(5-7MB files)
2)the higher the hd speed, the lower the access time and higher transfer rates
3)bigger buffers help burst transfer rates, like transferring small(5-7MB files)
Higher data density usually means faster seeks.
As for buying, I tend to buy whatever drive size represents two platters. One platter and much of the cost of the drive is the heads and other mechanics, three platters seems to carry a real premium cost (being the largest the manufacturer makes), so two is where I buy.
As for buying, I tend to buy whatever drive size represents two platters. One platter and much of the cost of the drive is the heads and other mechanics, three platters seems to carry a real premium cost (being the largest the manufacturer makes), so two is where I buy.
You're right, to a point. Drives within the same family will have the same performance, though, regardless of size. Hard to tell if that's true, however, since makers often release smaller versions of their newest drive under the same label as their older models. An 80gig single platter drive is just as fast as the same brand's 240gig three platter model, but has the same designation as the older double platter 80gig model. which is slightly slower...
It's very difficult to sense any difference in modern 7200rpm drives- other than the 8meg cache models being faster at large file transfers. Benches are one thing, the real world experience is entirely another. No point in spending for capacity you don't need or want. Guys who are into mp3's and video need the huge drives- and backing them up is an incredible chore...
It's very difficult to sense any difference in modern 7200rpm drives- other than the 8meg cache models being faster at large file transfers. Benches are one thing, the real world experience is entirely another. No point in spending for capacity you don't need or want. Guys who are into mp3's and video need the huge drives- and backing them up is an incredible chore...
I appreciate the feedbacks. From what I understand, if I can find a 80GB single platter hardrive that is the one to go with as far as the biggest bang for your buck. Is there such a hardrive?
jacktesterson
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 5,493
- 3
- 81
you only live once so go out of your way to reach the limit and buy a boat!
15K SCSI best choice
15K SCSI best choice
jacktesterson
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 5,493
- 3
- 81
u put a raptor on non stop for 3 yrs compard to a 15k SCSI drive and see which one is still going at the end of the 3 yrs
Reviews almost always review the largest capacity of each new drive family, which artificially creates the appearance that larger drives perform much better than smaller capacity drives when in actuality, if they are using the same platters the difference in performance is not significant. When picking a drive the family is more important when determining performance than the capacity. The denser the platter, the newer the drive, the better the performance. Unfortunately, with WD, it is impossible to tell what you are getting beforehand unless you pick the largest capacity. Maxtor is only slightly better, as they do create new names for each family, but there is variation within even the family, so you don't know for sure what you will get. Only Seagate and Hitachi/IBM name their drives in such a fashion that you can be positive you are getting exactly what you order.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter