Is SCSI faster?

[Stiganator]

I had always thought a Ultra 320 drive would be faster than IDE drives at everything, but Anand's article seems to indicate otherwise. I was contemplating using a 73GB Cheetah 15k.3 in my newest computer, if I installed critical applications on it would I see a marked improvement over 7200 IDE for Windows XP and 3dStudio and such? Is a combination of SCSI and IDE optimal?

 

[dullard]

The top SCSI is faster than the top IDE drives. But SCSI and IDE have different optimizations - they are made for different markets. In my opinion, SCSI is all I'd ever want for a server, but for a home computer/workstation SCSI is generally not needed and isn't optimized for that use. As you can see from Anand's tests, in current programs that a home user uses, IDE can beat SCSI. Especially if cost is an issue to you. Remember that most programs that most people use are not HD limited. So a faster HD won't affect performance.

I realize Pariah will come in here and say that I'm 100% wrong. You can listen to his arguments as well. They most likely are:
1) Everyone uses 15K SCSI drives and you are an idiot if you don't buy a 15K SCSI drive.
2) Anand didn't test 15K SCSI drives thus the article is meaningless.
3) Anand's test is meaningless since no one uses those programs.

I happen to disagree with #1 and #3 above. But #2 is a quite valid point. If you really need HD speed, then the top 15K SCSI drives are the way to go. But I don't think home users generally really need that much HD speed.

A good 15K SCSI drive for speed and a cheap but large ATA (IDE) drive for storage space is a good optimum.

 

[SCSIfreek]

Than what? IDE drives? what Kind of SCSI drives are you refering to? head over to storagereview.com for more SCSI information before asking the question. Have a good time.


--Scsi

 

[mechBgon]

I use 15k SCSI daily on my workstation. My drive's an X15-36LP, about the equivalent of the new Maxtor Atlas 10k IV that you see in Anand's test performance-wise.

My system is an nForce2-based system with an AthlonXP 1700+ (not overclocked). I built an nForce2-based AthlonXP 2200+ system for our HR guy, with a WD 800JB (8Mb cache). Special Edition IDE versus recent-model SCSI. Guess what? Yep... mine's faster in real life, subjectively speaking, despite a handicap in the CPU area.

edit: stignator, if you use SCSI, I would stick with Win2000.

 

[sharkeeper]

Yes SCSI is faster. Will it work better for your particular application? It's hard to say without further analysis. Most users are better off going to 1+ GB of RAM.

Cheers!

 

[Thor86]

If you can afford the higher costs, then once you go SCSI, there is no going back. U160 68pin 10k-15k rpm drives are waaay faster than the fastest IDE drives.

 

[WyteWatt]

Anandtech should do a review with the Seagate 15.3K 15000 rpm HD and the new Maxtor 15,000 rpm HD vs the fastest IDE HDs!

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Anandtech should do a review with the Seagate 15.3K 15000 rpm HD and the new Maxtor 15,000 rpm HD vs the fastest IDE HDs!

I second that motion!

BTW, stignator why Win2K for SCSI? I'm not using SCSI (yet, in progress) but am wondering what your experience is with WinXP that compels you to stipulate Win2K?

 

[sharkeeper]

Anandtech should do a review with the Seagate 15.3K 15000 rpm HD and the new Maxtor 15,000 rpm HD vs the fastest IDE HDs!

Yes and Road & Track should pit a Dodge Caravan with a Twin Turbo 911S.

Cheers!

 

[WyteWatt]

sharkeeper lol i didn't say he had to. I just said it would be nice if he did. My goodness.

 

[mechBgon]

(replying to Idontcare) ---> Meaning me, correct? WinXP has some performance issues with SCSI that don't seem evident in raw Win2000 through Win2000 SP2, although after installing SP3 for Win2000 I had to take corrective action (upgrade my disk to Dynamic Disk in Windows Disk Management) to restore performance. People have gone to the extent of formulating their own patches in an effort to skirt WinXP's problem with SCSI.

Doctor, it hurts when I do this...

...yep.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
(replying to Idontcare) ---> Meaning me, correct? WinXP has some performance issues with SCSI that don't seem evident in raw Win2000 through Win2000 SP2, although after installing SP3 for Win2000 I had to take corrective action (upgrade my disk to Dynamic Disk in Windows Disk Management) to restore performance. People have gone to the extent of formulating their own patches in an effort to skirt WinXP's problem with SCSI.

Doctor, it hurts when I do this...

...yep.

Sorry mechBgon, meant to ask you but copied wrong name in my post.

That is interesting (not sarcastic). Is the issue with SCSI cards and WinXP not playing nice? Probably you've talked about this in other threads, care to spare a link that I may go and educate myself before wasting your's and other's time with additional questions? If you're busy then no prob, I'll do an AT search and try to find some info.

Thanks!!

 

[Whitedog]

No, SCSI is NOT FASTER... What gave you That Idea??????

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: mechBgon
(replying to Idontcare) ---> Meaning me, correct? WinXP has some performance issues with SCSI that don't seem evident in raw Win2000 through Win2000 SP2, although after installing SP3 for Win2000 I had to take corrective action (upgrade my disk to Dynamic Disk in Windows Disk Management) to restore performance. People have gone to the extent of formulating their own patches in an effort to skirt WinXP's problem with SCSI.

Doctor, it hurts when I do this...

...yep.

Sorry mechBgon, meant to ask you but copied wrong name in my post.

That is interesting (not sarcastic). Is the issue with SCSI cards and WinXP not playing nice? Probably you've talked about this in other threads, care to spare a link that I may go and educate myself before wasting your's and other's time with additional questions? If you're busy then no prob, I'll do an AT search and try to find some info.

Thanks!!

Nobody knows, including Microsoft, which is why they've done JACK SHIZZLE ABOUT IT. I was using SCSI on XP, nowhere near as fast as Win2K, overall transfer rate was lower than normal IDE hds at some points, dont bother with SCSI if your using XP. (if there's a fix that pops up later on in the thread I had no clue there was one, I've been waiting for MS to do something about it but have heard nothing).