• 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.

New Hard Drive Purchase

O

OPaul

Junior Member
I'm looking to purchase a SATA drive. I think I've narrowed it down to either the Hitachi Deskstar T7K250 or the Maxtor DiamondMax 10. The Deskstar is SATAII and includes NCQ where as the DiamondMax is SATA150 but has a 16MB cache. Would I see more performance if I went with the SATAII or with the 16MB cache? Are there any other better options? I will be using the drive as my primary hard drive with Windows on it.
 
what are their sizes? generally, sataII doesn't seem to be too useful, whereas bigger cache seems to have a bit more use. not to mention NCQ is a double edged sword and why i'm glad WD hasn't used it in their sata drives... yet.

and i'm sure the seagate fanboys cometh!
 
The Hitachi is 160 and I'll either get the 200 or 250 Maxtor. I'm not really worried about size though, 160 is plenty.

My main concern really is if SATAII is worth it or not. Most of the figures I've seen show NCQ either not helping or hindering performance. And from what I understand all the bandwidth hasn't even been utilized in SATA150 yet so doubling it seems redundant. So I'm wondering if I would see more of a performance boost if I just stuck with SATA150 and got a 16MB cache. And actually the Maxtor (SATA150) has NCQ also.

Maxtor DiamondMax 10
Hitachi Deskstar T7K250

There's also the Western Digital WD1600JS (SATAII) but it doesn't seem to offer much over the Hitachi and costs a little extra.
Western Digital WD1600JS

David, why do you say the Hitachi?
 
I second the Hitachi, just because I personally avoid Maxtors. Other's swear by them, so it's completely a personal bias.
Tas.
 
Personally, I'll go with the Hitchie's. This is a caption from a recent review of mass storage.

"To those who might wish to upgrade an existing UltraATA system, we currently recommend the Hitachi Desktop T7K250 because of its great price/performance ratio. Those seeking bigger drives should consider offerings in the WD3200 family or the Barracuda 7200.8 lines: neither suffers from excessive access times, and both offer plenty of capacity. "

They did a test on the Maxtor also but was never mentioned in the conclusion.
 
where are you planning on buying them from and at what prices? i believe there's a 250gb sataII 16mb WD for $120 shipped somewhere.

edit: and are they retail or OEM (bare)?
 
Well, first of all, you should go to Storagereview.com for any questions about harddrives. Nothing against Anandtech and all of the "gurus" here, but... storagereview is THE place to go for these types of questions.

That being said- I'd go with the Hitachi.

I did lots of research on this very subject, and was torn between the Hitach T7K, WD, and Samsung Spinpoints. I ended up with the Hitachi for my RAID, and Samsungs for my "other" drives. Basically, the 16meg cache really doesn't make a difference 99% of the time. The WD is a nice drive, but overall the Hitachi T7K is a little better in various benchmarks- and has the best access time outside of the Raptor. The Spinpoint SP2004C's are very quiet, and have the fastest transfer rates of all the sataII drives, but slightly slower access times.

So, I'd suggest either the SP2004C or the Hitachi T7K series.
 
Originally posted by: notanotheract
where are you planning on buying them from and at what prices? i believe there's a 250gb sataII 16mb WD for $120 shipped somewhere.

edit: and are they retail or OEM (bare)?
Click to expand...

Newegg
 
Originally posted by: OPaul
I'm looking to purchase a SATA drive. I think I've narrowed it down to either the Hitachi Deskstar T7K250 or the Maxtor DiamondMax 10. The Deskstar is SATAII and includes NCQ where as the DiamondMax is SATA150 but has a 16MB cache. Would I see more performance if I went with the SATAII or with the 16MB cache? Are there any other better options? I will be using the drive as my primary hard drive with Windows on it.
Click to expand...

How about both 16MB and SATAII. The Hitachi is a great performer and recent tests showed that the Hitachi had the most efficiant NCQ of all production drives.
 
as long as performance is the same.. 3yr down the road i will change hd, no need to hold till 5 for 10 bucks less imho.
since by than, half a terabyte would be the norm with all high definition, 1080i coming around the corner.
 
from my understandment, i might be wrong.. it seems it doesnt matter 1.5 vs 3.0 since it doesnt fully utlize the bandwidth.. unless i misread or mistintepreted that aspect.. ncq+16mb = good deal wether it is 1.5 or 3.0...

but im fairly new to the harddrive talk so dont take my word for it.
 
Originally posted by: Novercalis
from my understandment, i might be wrong.. it seems it doesnt matter 1.5 vs 3.0 since it doesnt fully utlize the bandwidth.. unless i misread or mistintepreted that aspect.. ncq+16mb = good deal wether it is 1.5 or 3.0...

but im fairly new to the harddrive talk so dont take my word for it.
Click to expand...

i'm pretty sure you're correct. if you click on the "storage" tab on anandtech and go down to some article. here's the link to it:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2450
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top