• 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.

SATA or not?

4

4x4expy

Senior member
I am about to buy another HD in the 120-200 GB range. Would I be better served by a SATA drive(my BH7 has 1 sata port), or by a cheaper but well respected 8mb cache drive? I plan to use this new drive to hold my OS and possibly run a single drive only. Any ideas or recommendations welcome.

 
Yup, go for the 8mg cache. SATA is much less cost effective at this time, and most of the SATA drives available are really ATA133 electronics with a SATA interface grafted on. This means that you can connect it to your SATA connections, but you won't get any better performance than the same drive with a IDE connection.
 
WD has a new SATA drive, only 36gb though but is also 10k rpm. Reviews and benchmarks i read on it were pretty good. Cost i saw was 160, making the gb to $ ratio a bit high, but not as high as scsi though.
 
Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
Why not a 8mb sata drive? Googlegear seams to have a hoard of them.
Click to expand...

That is why I asked. I have found SATA drives like the WD Raptor 10krpm, 36gb for $150-160 (or 7200rpm 160gb SATA for around $169) as compared to WD SE 8mb 120gb for $120 or somtimes much less for OEM. I have no doubt the performance of the Raptor is noticably better but I hear that the 8mb cache ata drives are also impressive. Thanks for everyones response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top