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

[mode101wpb]

Hitachi T7K250, have to say though I didn't notice any performance jump switching the drive to 3.0 Gb/s.

Also the Feature Tool V1.98 wasn't supported by my motherboard, had to use V1.97 to get the feature tool to boot.

 

[raildogg]

Hitachi T7K250 - one of the best drives on the market now, also one of the fastest

get it

 

[mode101wpb]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Hitachi T7K250 - one of the best drives on the market now, also one of the fastest

get it

That's what I have, but more then once people tell me they will never buy another because of that whole IBM Deathstar fiasco. Eventhough these new drives are a totally different design, they won't change their mind.

 

[DerelictDev]

I hate these posts with people uneducated and not willing to look online for information about SATA I "II" and its extensions. O lookey hd's with SATA II, they must be better! let me waste my money and get one!!!

I have a seagate 7200.8 and i LOVE it. Im 90% the first one to load into a new BF2 map. You cant get much better than that plus its reliable as hell. Max through-put on hd's doesnt go past 80mb on average (not burst) so having a 300mb pipeline is worthless.

 

[mode101wpb]

Originally posted by: DerelictDev
I hate these posts with people uneducated and not willing to look online for information about SATA I "II" and its extensions. O lookey hd's with SATA II, they must be better! let me waste my money and get one!!!

I have a seagate 7200.8 and i LOVE it. Im 90% the first one to load into a new BF2 map. You cant get much better than that plus its reliable as hell. Max through-put on hd's doesnt go past 80mb on average (not burst) so having a 300mb pipeline is worthless.

I paid less then $90 for my T7K250, "waste of money"...no way. I found the Seagate drives to be on the noisy side.

So far as this test shows, 300 vs. 150 shows no benefit.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/hgst-t7k250/index.x?pg=12

 

[DerelictDev]

Originally posted by: mode101wpb

Originally posted by: DerelictDev

I paid less then $90 for my T7K250, "waste of money"...no way. I found the Seagate drives to be on the noisy side.

So far as this test shows, 300 vs. 150 shows no benefit.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/hgst-t7k250/index.x?pg=12

Hitachi drives arent too bad and less than $90 is a good price (depending on size of course) but saying seagates are noisy is insane. I cant hear mine at all, it need to be close to my ear to hear anything.

 

[ZH]

Thanks for the info anarchyreigns. So how come some descriptions use 150MB/s or 300MB/s?

The reason I started looking into this was that I happened on this while in search for new hd's. It sounds promising enough and it's a great deal. Even if it's full potential isn't going to be seen, I'm sure it'll perform just as well or better as any other IDE or SATA drive. I may even try it in RAID 0, it's cheap enough!

 

[mode101wpb]

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/hgst-t7k250/index.x?pg=1

 

[MobiusPizza]

Originally posted by: ZH
Thanks for the info anarchyreigns. So how come some descriptions use 150MB/s or 300MB/s?

The reason I started looking into this was that I happened on this while in search for new hd's. It sounds promising enough and it's a great deal. Even if it's full potential isn't going to be seen, I'm sure it'll perform just as well or better as any other IDE or SATA drive. I may even try it in RAID 0, it's cheap enough!

3Gbits = 300MBytes

In SATA interface, 8 databit and 2 parity bit is used so they define 1byte as 10bits
Therefore 3Gbit/s or 3Gb/s is exactly the same as 300MB/s
Marketing gimmick

 

[ZH]

$90 for a 250GB is a great deal regardless of what it can give you.

Dude, the only reason people every post these "i hate when noobs do this... blah, blah, blah... without doing a little search... blah, blah, blah..." replies is because they either want to toot their own horns about how knowlegable they are, or to just to say that they aren't noobs, or to just to be an A$$.

Everyone's been a noob at one time or another. And they still are on certain topics.
I can humbly say that I am a noob in the realm of certain new technologies, but I know my way around a computer, having built 7 of em over the years... and that's starting with an 8086 PC. Some of you may remember what that is!

To the hater(s).. it would be easier for you (and the rest of the world) to ignore the noob questions and move on to the next posts. The forums were designed for perpetuating communication and sharing knowledge. If it's not being used for that, what's it good for other than bouts of bragging rights or piddly flame wars?

To the rest.. ignore the hate posts.

my 2 pesos.

 

[ZH]

I see.. so 300MBytes = 2.51Gbits ~ 3Gbits?
It's funny how they play the numbers game.

 

[Nocturnal]

Actually if you take a look as to who is saying "noob this noob that" they're just "members" who just signed up and want to increase their forum cred. If you look at majority of the older members and Elite Members they're alawys here to help.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: DerelictDev

Originally posted by: mode101wpb

Originally posted by: DerelictDev

I paid less then $90 for my T7K250, "waste of money"...no way. I found the Seagate drives to be on the noisy side.

So far as this test shows, 300 vs. 150 shows no benefit.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/hgst-t7k250/index.x?pg=12

Hitachi drives arent too bad and less than $90 is a good price (depending on size of course) but saying seagates are noisy is insane. I cant hear mine at all, it need to be close to my ear to hear anything.

Hitachi is a good brand. They got unfairly blackballed for too long after the deathstar episode. I'd say it faster and just as reliable if not more than seagates.

The problem with seagates is that AAM is not user configurable on .7/.8 models. It depends what the factory sets them to. Some reviews like the one on TechReport did record relatively noisy .8's (a full 6.6db! louder than hitachi). So I do believe that there are noisy .7/.8 seagates around.

 

[ZH]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Actually if you take a look as to who is saying "noob this noob that" they're just "members" who just signed up and want to increase their forum cred. If you look at majority of the older members and Elite Members they're alawys here to help.

That's also true. Tech forums like these are always my next choice if a Google search doesn't provide what I'm looking for.

 

[Bona Fide]

Samsung Spinpoint

 

[ZH]

I just got the Hitachi Deskstar 7K80's in. I did a little test with 2 of them in a RAID 0 (16k blocks) with HD Tach. I've never used it before but it's free. Let me know if I should try a different tool.
Random Access: 13.1ms
CPU utilization: 11%
Avg Read: 97MB/s
Burst Read Speed: 335MB/s

I also should mention, I enabled the 3GB switch and Spread Spectrum.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: ZH
I just got the Hitachi Deskstar 7K80's in. I did a little test with 2 of them in a RAID 0 (16k blocks) with HD Tach. I've never used it before but it's free. Let me know if I should try a different tool.
Random Access: 13.1ms
CPU utilization: 11%
Avg Read: 97MB/s
Burst Read Speed: 335MB/s

I also should mention, I enabled the 3GB switch and Spread Spectrum.

Thats one hell of a read rate. I have two Raptors in a raid 0 and they average around 90 MBs sustained transfer. Qucik, but no where near fast enough for what they cost, and not much faster than single drives that are out now. I have the first gen 36 gig Raptors, fast as hell when they first came out, just quick by todays standards.

 

[ZH]

Originally posted by: ZH
I just got the Hitachi Deskstar 7K80's in. I did a little test with 2 of them in a RAID 0 (16k blocks) with HD Tach. I've never used it before but it's free. Let me know if I should try a different tool.
Random Access: 13.1ms
CPU utilization: 11%
Avg Read: 97MB/s
Burst Read Speed: 335MB/s

I also should mention, I enabled the 3GB switch and Spread Spectrum.

========

I turned off the 3GB switch and Spread Spectrum. Here's the results.

Random Access: 13.3ms
CPU utilization: 11%
Avg Read: 97.2MB/s
Burst Read Speed: 224.1MB/s

No difference other than the burst read, but that is over 100MB/s difference. Is that a determining factor to buy this one? I'd say not unless you are already in the market to buy a new harddrive because your old one failed or is very old. I don't think it's enough to warrant a replacement of a functioning HD. Although I have to say at $110 for 2 of these shipped, it was a heck of a good deal!

 

[mode101wpb]

I didn't enable Spread Spectrum Clocking, after reading about it I came to the conclusion that it's only there to meet certain requirements, I don't know the specifics but there is no performance gain. I also read that with NCQ enabled nothing is gained, but I've yet to try this.

 

[ZH]

I believe it's for decreasing the EMI (Electro-Magnetic Interference). I think it's a good idea if it works. Maybe it'll help my cellphone get a better reception when sitting at my desk.

 

[ElTorrente]

I get about 200 mb/second on HDTach with my Hitachis, and a burst rate of 650mb/s.

Someone asked me earlier in this thread why I have 4 drives in a Raid0, and the answer is because it's fun, that's why. I just want a fast, quiet Raid setup- no other compelling reason.

EDIT: btw, leave Spread Spectrum OFF.

 

[Bozono]

I just got the WD 1600JS SataII and I'm impressed for the money. It was cheaper than most SataI, native Sata bridge, runs fairly cool and average transfer of 63mg/sec. with burst around 109mg/sec on an nForce 2 board. No complaints.