ok, Now buying a SATA II 3.0gb Hardrive. Best brands...?

[DARQ MX]

yea, I know I wish Seagate made them, but I have not found any. All I use is seagate and I only had one die on me, and that was like a 97'

Ive had over 4 WD's die on me, 2 maxtor, 1 samsung and too many IBM's...

I currantly own a hitachi deathstar that has not died (yet). a Maxtor and a couple of seagates.

I tend to buy only seagate but since I don't really have a choice I will buy anything that is real good...


thanks for anyone who can suggest...

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

What's wrong with Seagate's 7200.8? SATA2 is not completely used yet, n ot to mention sATA150 is totally underused. I have a 7200.8 (just got it), and I picked it over the WD SATA2 and Hitachi SATA2 drive simply because there's no need and I'd rather have a quieter and more reliable drive.

 

[DARQ MX]

There is nothing wrong with SATA 1, I just want to get ready for SATA II cause my mobo supports it.

 

[l Xes l]

i just recently got a hitachi SATA ll drive... it's working fine.. but i'd never buy a hitachi again..
i've only had WD till now... and after buying hitachi, it made me realize how much better WD is..

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

For me = Hitachi.
Tas.

 

[Hough NutZ]

Stick with Seagate

 

[anarchyreigns]

Wait for the 7200.9

 

[raildogg]

wait for Seagate.9

or get the Hitachi T7K250. It is awesome and similarly priced to other 250gb hard drives and has what you want

 

[ElTorrente]

I have the hitachi T7K 160gb drives (4 of them in raid0), and they are very quite. I really don't hear them much at all.

My spinpoints are both excellent also, in fact - if I could choose just one brand/type, I guess I'd choose my spinpoints since they are quiter, and have excellent tranfer rates. The hitachis a have a little faster seek time, and so work well with my raid.. either one is a great choice.

 

[eplebnista]

Samsung

 

[Pabster]

Wait for the 7200.9. Or grab some 7200.8's now and upgrade

Samsung drives (the SpinPoint's) are nice but frankly (IMHO) Seagate is the best choice looking at warranty as well...

 

[Stangs55]

just get a 7200.8....SATA II offers nothing that SATA I can't give you in the real world.

 

[anarchyreigns]

you don't know what SATA II means then.

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I have the hitachi T7K 160gb drives (4 of them in raid0), and they are very quite. I really don't hear them much at all.

:thumbsup:

 

[d2arcturus]

Check out the new WD Caviar SE16s if you don't want to wait.

 

[Gamingphreek]

you don't know what SATA II means then.

Ummm im thinking something to the effect of:

SATA: Serial AT Attachment. A Serial method of connecting a peripheral to the motherboard, at 150Gb/s (theoretical). Serial ATA replaced/is replacing Parallel ATA on the consumer level market. The update for SATA aka. SATA II offers 300Gb/s transfer rates (theoretical). With SATA II manufacturers commonly add features such as Native Command Queing (Organizes the Queue of tasks into an order that takes less rotations to accomplish a given task).

Im not quite sure what you were thinking of

Anyways, well if you are hell-bent on getting SATA II right this moment, you really cant beat the Samsung Spinpoints. They are the quietest drive on the market, and IMO are better than Hitachi.

However, i would advise getting a Seagate 7200.7, or more preferably, a .8, and then as other suggested waiting for the .9's. In otherwords, use the .7/.8 as a short term drive to tide you over until you get the one you really want.

-Kevin

Edit: I wouldn't do that unless the product number shows support for Fluid Bearings. Otherwise it will have the wonderful, yet annoying, WD whine. Even with them WD drives are A LOT noisier than Samsung and Seagate (the top 2). As for the 16mb cache; of course if you give something more cache it will use it and (should) increase performance, but the performance difference is no more than 1% in most cases. Not worth the extra money.

 

[anarchyreigns]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

you don't know what SATA II means then.

Ummm im thinking something to the effect of:

The update for SATA aka. SATA II offers 300Gb/s transfer rates (theoretical).

This part is incorrect.

SATA II just simply a set of extensions that can be added to a SATA drive, and has nothing to do with the interface speed, as the SATA spec can go to 6gb/sec.

 

[DARQ MX]

bump

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: anarchyreigns

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

you don't know what SATA II means then.

Ummm im thinking something to the effect of:

The update for SATA aka. SATA II offers 300Gb/s transfer rates (theoretical).

This part is incorrect.

SATA II just simply a set of extensions that can be added to a SATA drive, and has nothing to do with the interface speed, as the SATA spec can go to 6gb/sec.

Based on what information? I guess the double available bandwidth is a marketing farce? I believe he meant to put 3Gpbs, not 300Gbps, btw.

 

[wpshooter]

Again, wait for the Segate. Buy older model if you must. But stay with Seagate.

 

[wexsmith]

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: anarchyreigns

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

you don't know what SATA II means then.

Ummm im thinking something to the effect of:

The update for SATA aka. SATA II offers 300Gb/s transfer rates (theoretical).

This part is incorrect.

SATA II just simply a set of extensions that can be added to a SATA drive, and has nothing to do with the interface speed, as the SATA spec can go to 6gb/sec.

Based on what information? I guess the double available bandwidth is a marketing farce? I believe he meant to put 3Gpbs, not 300Gbps, btw.

Based on the organization that greatly influences these types of specifications.

http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp

and yeah...I'm sure he meant 3Gb/s.

 

[CraKaJaX]

Originally posted by: eplebnista
Samsung

 

[ZH]

the whole SATA technology standard is confusing... everyone wants to set up their own naming convention hoping to capture the base market.
Some sites say SATAII does not mean 3GB/s, but then I've also seen some sites and product descriptions saying SATAII with 300MB/s (this is probably what Gamingphreek was trying to type. Then there's also SATA2, which seems to be the same thing as SATAII.
I'd like to know if a mboard with SATAII will support 3GB/s or 300MB/s.
The only thing that I can say with confidence is that the original SATA is at a max of 150MB/s.
I'm so confused...

 

[anarchyreigns]

Originally posted by: ZH
the whole SATA technology standard is confusing... everyone wants to set up their own naming convention hoping to capture the base market.
Some sites say SATAII does not mean 3GB/s, but then I've also seen some sites and product descriptions saying SATAII with 300MB/s (this is probably what Gamingphreek was trying to type. Then there's also SATA2, which seems to be the same thing as SATAII.
I'd like to know if a mboard with SATAII will support 3GB/s or 300MB/s.
The only thing that I can say with confidence is that the original SATA is at a max of 150MB/s.
I'm so confused...

Here's the deal:

There are two main types of SATA drives. SATA 1.5G and SATA 3G. (and will everntually go to 6G) The difference between the two are the interface speeds. No drive comes close to either one of those speeds, so it doesn't make any difference whether a drive is SATA 1.5G or SATA 3G at this point in time.

SATA II is just a set of extensions that can be added to either a SATA 1.5G or SATA 3G drive, providing features such as Native Command Queuing, staggered spin up, etc., etc.

A SATA drive can have some, all, or none of the SATA II extensions.
In some cases the mobo's controller must support the extensions too, such as with Native Command Queuing. All nForce4 boards support some SATA II extensions, such as NCQ.

What SATA II does not mean, however, is a 3Gb/s transfer rate...amongst other things.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
I have the hitachi T7K 160gb drives (4 of them in raid0), and they are very quite. I really don't hear them much at all.

eeeek raid 0 :Q

with 4 of them why not raid 5