Is it worth getting a Seagate 15000 rpm, 3.9 ms access time SCSI HD and SCSI controller for faster speed on my computer?

[WyteWatt]

Would i notice a night to day difference from my Maxtor 45 gig 7200 rpm < 8.7 access time and three 15 gig platters to a Seagate 15000 rpm, 3.9 ms access time SCSI HD? I mean like a huge speed difference in anything. Like opening a program, game, surfing the internet, copying 1 gig file, moving files over a network, downloading onto HD, etc? Also i may have a 45 gig HD right now but i am barely using that much. I am using about 17 gigs of it right now only. I never used any more than that in the whole 1 year i owned this HD so i really do not need a whole lot of space. Also would SCSI be faster to format, install windows on,installing 2 to 5 programs at once, etc ?

Any help appreicated
Please Reply
Thanks

 

[Howard]

Moving files, you wouldn't notice much of a difference. Booting up, running hard intensive programs, web serving, etc. would benefit from a 15K RPM drive. Are you rich enough that you need one of them to surf the net and download?

 

[Soccerman]

there's only one way to find out install it, and then try running without it, you'll probably notice a difference

transfering filesover the network would be limited by the network cable (unless you're running Gigabit ethernet which would allow approximately 125 megs a second) and the network card.

opening programs, and games will notice a speed increase. working with large files (say 1 gig or so) would definately see a benefit if the amount of RAM isn't enough to hold the file (and even if it was, the program might be optimized to load only part of the file to the RAM and rely on the HD for the rest).

installig programs are more likely to be limited by the installation drive. unless you have the installation files on the SCSI drive itself, then you probably won't see that much of a difference.

what you WOULD see a slight difference is when the hard drive is being accessed, you would notice MUCH less slowdown unless the application is limited by the hard drives bandwidth. ie, less CPU usage in those situations.

 

[WyteWatt]

so i would not ever notice a night to day difference?
What about from the WD1000JB and WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache IDE HDs would there be much of difference from these to a Seagate 15000 rpm, 3.9 ms access time SCSI HD ? Like from night to day? Huge increase of speed i mean. Something that will impress me and anyone. Speed to a SCSI may not impress me so you have to be 100% sure if you can.

Thanks

 

[WyteWatt]

anyone?

 

[Soccerman]

lol no you won't notice incredable differences between the two. according to storagereview, the western digital drives do alot better than others without 8 megs of RAM in the tasks that we do, but I don't know if I trust that or not. there's only one way for me to find out.

you will realize an overall increase in system responsiveness. likely you'll notice it most when trying to run on a system WITHOUT the SCSI drives...

you're not likely to find too many people who've got the X15-36LP drives on these forums, perhaps a couple. only they can tell you what it's like.

 

[WyteWatt]

So is WD1200JB 8 mb of cache only 2nd fastest HD in the world? Just second to the Seagate 15000 rpm, 3.9 ms access time SCSI HD but faster than the 7200 and 10000 rpm SCSI HDs? BTW does the sorta high 13.4 to 13.6 ms access time on the WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache effect its system responsiveness or feel compared to other HDs like the IBM 120 GXP series with 12.0 ms and the Maxtor 740DX with 12.2 ms ? Does 13.4 or 13.6 ms to 12.2 or even 12.0 ms effect the performence much where you would notice the difference in real life with anything at all? Wish the WD1200BB had at least 12. something ms access time.

 

[crt1530]

I bought an 18.4GB X15-36LP this summer and have not once regretted it. SCSI is not for everyone, but if you have the means, I highly recommend it. (if you buy one, I recommend you pair it with a Tekram DC-390U3W controller).

 

[WyteWatt]

crt1530 ok would like to ask you some questions about your 18.4GB X15-36LP SCSI HD. What HD did you have right before you upgraded to this SCSI HD?

Thanks

 

[Soccerman]

So is WD1200JB 8 mb of cache only 2nd fastest HD in the world? Just second to the Seagate 15000 rpm, 3.9 ms access time SCSI HD but faster than the 7200 and 10000 rpm SCSI HDs?

NO! by far no!

why? well most SCSI drives since the 7200 RPM ones have had 8 megs of cache, and much lower access times (almost half I think). so they probably outperform the Western Digital drives by a little bit, if not with Transfer rate.

AFAIK all 10K RPM drives have 8 megs of cache, so they all have better access times than the Western Digital drives, and fairly high transfer rates (look at the Quantum Atlas 10KIII).

and AFAIK all 15K RPM drives have 8 megs cache.. their access times are so low, and their transfer rates very competitive (sometimes faster) than the latest IDE drives.

 

[WyteWatt]

Soccerman is there anyway possible to like try out the Seagate 15000 rpm, 3.9 ms access time SCSI HD vs a WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache side by side in person by myself? So i can see and feel the speed difference in real life instead of just hearing what it is? I just like to try stuff because it gives me more of a picture of the performence increase i would expect from a SCSI HD if much at all. Maybe to me SCSI is not much faster at all and not fast enough lol. I think i am hard to impress btw with faster computer hardware. I will give you a example. I went from a intel celeron 366 mhz to a duron 800mhz. It was faster but for some reason it does not seem like a night to day difference like i sorta expected in a way. Games i guess i could notice a pretty big difference but other stuff somewhat faster but nothing that blew me off the chair. Also here is another example i went from 128 mb of ram to 256 mb of ram in windows 2000 was expecting a pretty big difference and did not notice much at all if any. I was sorta disappointed with both upgrades sense it did not show more of a speed increase lol. I guess i expect more speed from a hardware upgrade than i think. Not sure. One more explain is my sound card. I went from a SB 16 isa sound card to a Santa Cruz sound card. Ok i like the Santa Cruz sound card but to me it does not sound a whole lot different. But it does not have any cracking like my SB 16 isa sound card had sometimes but not much. But to me the SB16 isa sound card sounded just about the same as the Santa Cruz lol. I guess i was expecting more from that too and again was alittle disappointed. Even difference in speakers i got from 2 speakers that are connected a montior to 2.1 speakers i notice some difference but not like i expected mostly. Think it will be the same with upgrading to SCSI if i do ?

Any Help is appreciated
Please reply
Thanks

 

[Texmaster]

<< so i would not ever notice a night to day difference?
What about from the WD1000JB and WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache IDE HDs would there be much of difference from these to a Seagate 15000 rpm, 3.9 ms access time SCSI HD ? Like from night to day? Huge increase of speed i mean. Something that will impress me and anyone. Speed to a SCSI may not impress me so you have to be 100% sure if you can.

Thanks >>



I have a Quantum Atlas II 10k. Now of course its not as fast as the one you are looking at, but its pretty darn fast.

There is a difference on bootup, mp3 encoding and any large file movement.

Night and Day? I wouldn't go that far but it is faster.

 

[soulm4tter]

I highly recommend SCSI also. I went from a 45GB 75GXP to a Seagate Cheetah 18XL (late gen 10K) and the difference is considerable. The snappy responsiveness of my system is much nicer now. All apps open faster and games load much faster. Often times i like to open 4 or more apps at the same time and my 75GXP used to choke when i did so. But not my Cheetah. I imagine the difference from your Maxtor and a X15-36LP would be nearing the level of "nite and day."

Formatting my Cheetah seems to take forever, at least in FAT32......like twice as long as a 45GB 75GXP. It did format fast in NTFS format however.

Its my belief that access times directly reflects a systems responsiveness. I can't believe the new WD IDE drives with 13ms access times would feel nearly as responsive as the some of the latest 10k drives, let alone the 15K drives. The drive must access files before it can put them in cache. Most apps call upon many different files to launch and each file the drive must access will slow down the application launch time. So regardless of readspeeds, IPeak results, or IO/sec, access times are what i pay attention to most. Especially access times with outstanding IOs and CPU utilization under load......i'm not talkin HD Tach loads either......

<< I guess i expect more speed from a hardware upgrade | Think it will be the same with upgrading to SCSI if i do ? >>

hmm, maybe you shouldn't upgrade, cuz you'll probably be disappointed. I seem to always notice a difference when i upgrade most anything. But maybe i'm just more sensitive to changes than you. Maybe changes i find considerable, you would hardly notice.

 

[JohnnyPC]

Welp, I don't think it's going to knock your socks off...at least not what it sounds like you're hoping it would do for you. Sure you'll see some improvement in disk related tasks but not the wiz bang for the buck you would spend on the setup. I mean $200 - 250 for an 18 gig ultra 160 drive and $100 - 150 for a controller....this $300 or so dollars would be better spent cranking up your horseower if you're currently at anything less than 1 - 1.2 Ghz. An Athlon XP 2000 is right now around $275 - 300 and if you favor intel then get their 2 Ghz chip for about $300 - 325...

Now if you have decent specs in your system already then I think you have to ask yourself the question of how fast is fast enough. C'mon we've all enjoyed using these Ghz+ machines for only about a year now and everybody is already worried about going faster. If you can open your word program 2 seconds faster, or get another 10 fps out of Quake is it really going to make your day that much better knowing that you just spent $300 to do that?

Relax, have a beverage...and use those few extra excruciating seconds of inactivity your "slow" PC so thoughfully sets aside for you everyday for reflecting on the days when people used Pentium 75s that they bought for $5000...They thought life was good with their new smokin machine!

 

[WyteWatt]

Well i am on a Duron 800mhz right now but i think its fast enough for now. Think i should wait for the next AMD processors so i can see a night to day difference from my Duron 800mhz.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Well i am on a Duron 800mhz right now but i think its fast enough for now. Think i should wait for the next AMD processors so i can see a night to day difference from my Duron 800mhz. >>



Probably the best bet

 

[WyteWatt]

I sure wish i could try the Seagate 15000 rpm, 3.9 ms access time SCSI HD somewhere locally vs the WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache. Like use both of them on two of the same computer setups side by side and compare them in person. Would be nice before i brought anything.

 

[JohnnyPC]

Interesting point I thought about the test driving of these kind of parts, or computers for that matter. Faced with whether to buy or not to buy based on a test drive, I would betcha that there would be A LOT fewer systems and parts solde for the simple fact that they probably would measure up to what the consumer was expecting.

Look at the whole PC industry...it's in somewhat of a slump. Sure one day they're optimistic but the next day still nobody buys the new stuff. I think that basically everyone that wants a PC, has a PC and if they bought a PC in the last couple years then the burning desire to buy a new one just isn't there. It's not there becasue they can wirte letters, check email and balance there checkbooks just fine on their P3 500s...a new 2 Ghz isn't really going to do anything new for them. Poor Gateway, Dell and Compaq...seriously what are they going to do now that the bubble has burst?

 

[macciseah]

It may take slighty longer to boot with SCSI. Try IDE Raid 0 instead

 

[WyteWatt]

Not sure what Poor Gateway, Dell and Compaq... will do but they do not get any of my money sense i build my own computers now

How do yall think two WD1200JB HDs with 8 mb of cache would do in raid 0 ? Is that like having 16mb of cache? Or no ?

Also what does a lower access time really do for you? I mean does it make a list of folders open faster, faster response time of your system, or what ? I mean does seek time or sustain transfer rate for beginning and end make a bigger difference? i am thinking seek time but which one is more important to pay attendence too and if you want a faster HD should you get one with lower seek time ? Because if the WD 1200JB with 8 mb of cache has a seek time of 13.4 ms then that means it will not feel any faster than my Maxtor 45 gig i have now because it has a 12.5 to 12.9 ms seek time. Is this correct or not exactly?

Any help appeicated
Thanks

 

[Pariah]

"I sure wish i could try the Seagate 15000 rpm, 3.9 ms access time SCSI HD somewhere locally vs the WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache. Like use both of them on two of the same computer setups side by side and compare them in person. Would be nice before i brought anything."

I own both. The choice is pretty simple. If you need a lot of storage, go for the WD. If all you want is all out speed, the X15-36LP is the choice. Obviously if budget is any concern, then the WD is cheaper and much much larger. The X15-36LP is more responsive and gives the system a snappier feel. It's not a huge advantage though. When transferring large files, it's hard to detect a difference between the 2 despite the 10MB/s advantage of the X15-36LP.

Also, the X15-36LP has a 3.9ms seek time. The access time is around 5.9ms.

 

[WyteWatt]

Pariah would you say there is a night to day difference in the feel of both HDs? Like lets say with doing heavy disk activity? Also could you maybe post your HDtach for each HD please if possible. Also do they mult. task both really well? Have you ever seen any reviews on raid 0 of two WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache? Wondering how well it would do in raid 0 and if its like having a 16 mb cache. Pariah also what is most important to really pay attendence to for speed access time or sustain transfer rate for max. and min. ?

 

[Pariah]

In the majority of tests, the difference is not night and day. If you blind tested identical setups you would be able to pick out the X15-36LP, but don't expect to be blown away by the Seagate drive. I only use the WD for storage purposes so I can't tell you how well it multitasks, but I think that is overrated because there are very few people who truly multitask anyway. Previous generations of WD drives I used did not perform well in RAID arrays, I don't see any reason the newer ones would suddenly be RAID champions, even with more cache. For most computing tasks, access time is more important. For video editing, image editing, and other task that work with large files, STR is more important.

WD:
13.0ms access
49472 Bytes/s read max
40057.2 Bytes/s average read
27MB/s minimum

Seagate:
6.0ms access
61582 Bytes/s read max
52803.3 Bytes/s average read
41MB/s minimum

Tests were not run on a quiet system so due to downward spikes in the read speeds, I estimated the minimum at the end of the graph rather than giving the measurement of the lowest downward spike that HDTach records.

 

[WyteWatt]

Pariah wondering which one would you honestly recommend to get? Also do you own the 18 or 36 gig one ? I do know i barely filled up my 45 gig maxtor so far lol and had it for about a year now. But i do reformat a lot. I like to keep things clean. I only used a total of 17 gigs so far on my HD but thats the most ever so far. I barely get over 3 gigs most of the time. Just got a lot of useless stuff on my Hd right now so thats why its taking so much right now. Could get rid of 5 gigs easily if not more right now if i wanted.

Also how long does it take to bootup your computer from the moment you push your button power till the windows desktop is loaded up fully with your SCSI HD? Also what OS are you on? guessing windows 2000 or windows xp.

 

[Pariah]

If you have the money and 18 or 36GB is enough, the X15-36LP should be your choice. If you need to debate it that much and are that unsure, you should probably go with the WD. Don't forget you also need to buy a SCSI controller which adds to the cost. I have the 18GB, full disclosure is in my sig.

My system takes a very long time to boot up with network logon and everything else, no where near the 15-20 secs I see by some people on this forum. Don't buy SCSI for faster boot times, any speed advantage SCSI may have are nullified by the time it takes to initialize the SCSI card. I don't see what the big deal people make over boot time is anyway. Unless you crash all the time who cares? I reboot once a week tops, if my system took 10 minutes to boot I wouldn't really care.