SATA Drive differences

[SNM]

So, I'm looking at NewEgg and am checking out the SATA drives:
Hitachi 80GB
8.8 ms seek time
8 meg buffer
SATA II

as compared to A Seagate Barracuda 80 GB
8.5 ms seek time
8 meg buffer
SATA 150
NCQ

The Hitachi is $62, the Seagate is $70. Not much of a price difference. I'm curious how different the performance of these drives would be. I've heard that SATA II includes NCQ, is that right? Is the bandwidth difference between regular SATA and SATA II really worth anything? How about the difference in seek times?

 

[SNM]

*bump*

Pretty please answer?

 

[airfoil]

I'd choose the Seagate over the Hitachi because:

* Better reports of reliability and longer life for Seagate
* Too many reports of Hitachi drive failures
* On the face of it, a marginally lower seek time
* Supports SATA II
* Has NCQ

The one thing I'm wondering is, why are you buying an 80 GB drive at a time when the 'standard' size is 160~200 GB?

 

[imported_Slider]

I'd get the seagate.

 

[SNM]

So the bandwidth difference really isn't worth much?

 

[airfoil]

The 7K250 drives from Hitachi did hold the performance crown for a period of time, but that was in the age of SATA I. Hitachi drives have however has a high incidence of failures (I had a 120 GB drive fail on me too 3 months after I bought it).

Reliability is paramount when it comes to storage, performance is a poor second IMO.

Take a look at the Storage Review Leaderboard for the fastest desktop 7200 RPM drives here.

 

[dev0lution]

Seagate has the better warranty, a bit better seek time and some of the newer features like NCQ for $8 more. Get the Seagate.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Slider
I'd get the seagate.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: airfoil
I'd choose the Seagate over the Hitachi because:

* Better reports of reliability and longer life for Seagate
* Too many reports of Hitachi drive failures
* On the face of it, a marginally lower seek time
* Supports SATA II
* Has NCQ

The one thing I'm wondering is, why are you buying an 80 GB drive at a time when the 'standard' size is 160~200 GB?

And a standard five year warranty, even on OEM drives!

I have two Seagate drives (7200.7 and 7200.8) and I love them. Highly recommended.

 

[SNM]

Originally posted by: airfoil
I'd choose the Seagate over the Hitachi because:

* Better reports of reliability and longer life for Seagate
* Too many reports of Hitachi drive failures
* On the face of it, a marginally lower seek time
* Supports SATA II
* Has NCQ

The one thing I'm wondering is, why are you buying an 80 GB drive at a time when the 'standard' size is 160~200 GB?

Oh, I missed that last part. I'm not sure yet (not actually building my system for another month or two), but I'm probably gonna get two and stripe them.
160 gigs is more than I'm ever gonna use unless I get too lazy too uninstall things I'm finished with.

 

[rpsgc]

That's the Deskstar 7K80,... And one thing I can tell you: it's fast, as in F-A-S-T.

2 in RAID-0 --> 97 MB/s @ HD Tach

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: rpsgc
That's the Deskstar 7K80,... And one thing I can tell you: it's fast, as in F-A-S-T.

2 in RAID-0 --> 97 MB/s @ HD Tach

What are you talking about? I get 198 MB/s with RAID 0 and sata 150. Are you talking about average read or something? Im looking at the bar graph....