• 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.

SCSI vs IDE- Need you technical guys w/ hands-on experience

A

abracadabra1

Diamond Member
I have an abit kt7-raid w/a 13GB ATA66 7200RPM IBM Drive.
What would give me better performance-
Using the raid in stripping mode w/ an identical drive
or
Installing a SCSI system (7200RPM Ultra160)

What are the advantages of the two? Which would lead to less cpu utilization? Which would give me the best performance in intensive bechmarks for gaming? Cost-effectiveness as well?

thx in advance!

 
SCSI = faster RPM & lower CPU utilization. I been hearing that IDE RAID require some CPU utilitzation.. noticable more than SCSI counterpart. Unless the GAME thrashes on the hard drive like crazy, the only thing is loading.

SCSI RAID card are over 300 for good one. I use Adaptec Raidport iii w/64mb cache and that was 899.

If you're doing raid, go scsi, ide limits you to 4 drives and if you have IDE CDR or DVD or anything else, you only have 2 drive mirror which sucks.

SCSI allows 15 drives (-1 for controller)
 
well i wouldn't be using raid on the scsi system. it would actually be a mixed system w/ my os and games on the scsi drive and "storage" on the ide drive(s).
it's either an ide raid of a single scsi drive mixed in w/ ide drive(s).

thx again
 
On the scsi drive you would notice much much much less CPU utilization than on a IDE-RAID. Unless its one of the rare hardware-ide-raid controlers, then it wont be as drastic, but it will still be a difference.

As for write/read speeds, depends on the drives in question.

bart
 
One of the biggest advantage of the SCSI is the capability to have bidirectionnal data at a maximum of 160 Mb/s. So, if you have 2 ultra160 SCSI HDD you could hope to have a maximum sustain transfer rate of 160 Mb/s 1 way of 80 Mb/s in both direction (This is only theory because no HDD can do that right now).

This advantage shows up when you have multiple devices like CD, CDRW, DVD and 2 or 3 HDD. In this situation the SCSI is really faster.

The fact that SCSI HDD are 10K or more is another good point for SCSI.

BUT, SCSI has not the best price/performance ratio...so if you dont have the buck then try to find yourself ATA100 drive and controller and the performance gap wont be too big...

Good luck
 
The RAID setup will result in more bandwidth. Buying another 13GB IDE drive will be far cheaper. The seek times (latency) will be the same between both. And definitely the CPU utilization of the SCSI setup will be far less than the IDE RAID setup unless you get one of the expensive hardware IDE RAID cards...

SCSI has it's advantages - you can add lots of drives, it multitasks very well, CPU utilization is lower than IDE (although barely in these days of DMA), the fastest hard drives are always released on SCSI before IDE. But it is not a miracle bus. A 7200rpm drive on a SCSI setup is going to have approximately the same performance as a 7200rpm IDE drive. Maybe the bandwidth will be a tiny bit higher and maybe the CPU load will be a bit lower, but they are going to be very similar. Don't think that you will end up with a much faster drive if you swap out a 7200rpm IDE drive for a 7200rpm SCSI drive.

If you really want to see a big difference in performance you will need to spend a lot of money and get a fast 10krpm or 15krpm Ultra160 SCSI drive. These are expensive but you are guaranteed to be satisfied with the performance. If you merely swap one 7.2krpm IDE drive for a 7.2krpm SCSI drive, I can guarantee you will not be impressed with the bang/buck.
 
IDE raid has not been shown to improve performance in real world tests. As it stands, its only use is to allow for on-the-fly backup.

Now, one thing to remember is that CPU utilization on a normal 7200 rpm ATA/66 drive is insignificant. Modern busmastering DMA controller have progressed to the level where we see results like Anand's IBM 75GXP review, where CPU usage was around 4 per cent.

Currently, there is no valid reason to pay extra for a SCSI hard drive. The meager performance gains are not enough to justify the enormous added cost.

Modus
 
IDE RAID does not offer a significant performance increase.
If you're looking at 7200RPM SCSIs, consider the Atlas V, it's a great performer.
As others have said, SCSI has lower CPU utilization (lower by a lot), but beware, it is addicting 🙂
 
SCSI vs IDE: the endless debate.

CPU util is no longer an issue, if ur talking non-RAID IDE. RAID will suk more of ur CPU cycles. I've benched both SCSI & IDE drives with HD Tach, and they both yield similar CPU util scores (I have multiple drives of each flavor).

SCSI is a multitasking interface, while IDE is not. SCSI HDDS offer dramatically lower seek/access times, compared to the IDE drive.

Access = seek + latency.
Typical IDE (like the IBM 75GXP) = 8.5ms seek (ave) + 4.2ms latency (ave, 7200rpm spindle) = 12.7ms access (ave)
Typical 10Krpm SCSI drive (like 9GB IBM Ultrstar 36LZX for US$219) = 4.9ms seek + 3.0ms latency = 7.9ms access (all averages)
12.7 with no multitasking vs 7.9 with multitasking - that's what makes the SCSI drive + interface so much better at running an OS, apps, & swap/page file.
Note that the 15Krpm X15 Cheetah specs out at 3.9ms seek + 2.0ms = 5.9ms access, but costs over twice as much 36LZX, and only comes in 18GB flavor)

Storagereview says the following here:

"...it's evident that random access dominates typical workstation usage ... Though the loading of executables, DLLs, and other libraries are at first a sequential process, subsequent accesses are random in nature. Though the files themselves might be relatively large, parts of them are constantly being sent to and retrieved from the swapfile. Swapfile accesses, terribly fragmented in nature, are quite random. Executables call other necessary files such as images, sounds, etc. These files, though they may represent large sequential accesses, consist of a very small percentage of access when compared to the constant swapping that occurs with most system files. Combined with the natural fragmentation that plagues the disks of all but the most dedicated defragmenters, these factors clearly indicate that erring on the side of randomness would be preferred."

and here:

"...STR had relatively little effect upon overall drive performance. Today, it should be clear that steadily-increasing transfer rates have in effect "written themselves out" of the performance equation ... it should be clear that random access time is vastly more important than sequential transfer rate when it comes to typical disk performance. Thus, the reordered "hierarchy" of important quantifiable specs would read:

1. Seek Time
2. Spindle Speed
3. Buffer Size
4. Data Density
 
I wouldn't get a 7200rpm SCSI drive. If you can't afford US$219, save your money until you can.

Gaming does not work a disk subsytem hard - like multitrack audio or video-editing. If all u do w/ your PS is game, then gfx card, CPU, RAM, & a good monitor will be money better spent.
 
Don't do it!

IDE RAID is a CPU cycle vacuum and SCSI is only good if you go for the 10k adn 15k RPM drives.

Neither 7200rpm RAID0 nor 7200rpm SCSI is that great.
Hardware IDE RAID might be decent, but those cost $400...SCSI raid is even more...

Buy yourself a RadeonVivo or a GF2Ultra or get more RAM so your disk is used less...
That will give you better gaming performance than upping your hard drive.
Get enough RAM and your hard drive is only used at load time and between levels.
 
Actually, I opened a can of worms today with another thread about Hard Drive access and Ram.. you migh want to go read it Here.

The real trick was ADD a TON of memory to your system (hey man, it's SOOO damn cheap now) and tell windows to NOT USE SWAP FILE UNTIL YOU RUN OUT OF MEMORY!

I've already tested this and it ROCKS! If you have a LOT of Ram, you're Hard drive will never get used for swapping.

OK, if you're too lazy to read the whole thread, just do these simple steps

Win9X: tell windows to manage vitual memory. Do not have manual selected.
NT/2000: set minimum page file to 2, maximum to "whatever" 400?

Open system.ini and add the following line to [386enh]. (yes, NT/2000 has a system.ini)
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

Reboot. That's it!

Now windows will use Physical memory until it doesn't have anymore. I'm going to put 768 megs in my computer!
 
While SCSI may not affect the performance of many games (as long as you have enough memory and it doesn't have to hit the swap file often), it can make an affect in others. Consider UT. On a fast SCSI drive, it loads much faster.
Yes, SCSI is great for multitasking. Guess what, windows multitasks. Just starting your computer requires that thousands of small files be opened and closed.
If you like your programs to start up quick and are trying to make your system more responsive, SCSI should help.

Besides the user, the hard drive is most likely the slowest component in your computer. And it's quite a bottleneck.
 
abracadabra: it depends on what you want to do, what are you planning to use it for?

I'm a programmer and plays some games (tribes, AoK, BW, and D2) at home. I also compile stuff, among other things. For games, the ones I play doesn't require a fast HD (except D2). If you want game improvement, I suggest you upgrade your CPU, video card & RAM before you upgrade your HDD.

SCSI HDD are expensive but well worth it if you need fast access & loading time. For me, I went with a Seagate Cheetah X15 and my d2 runs quite smooth now, not even the infamous duriel lag is much of a problem now 🙂

Use a fast SCSI HDD for your OS, swapfile, and "important" apps like diablo2 🙂
 
infamous duriel lag? so that was a well knonw thing huh? my sorceress died literally more than 10 times... lost my 100k gold there :| it was only after my 8th death i actually had a chance to see him before i died :Q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top