I have an IDE drive and im going to be getting a new hard drive this is all confusing to me.. im not going IDE or PATA its either going to be SATA or SCSI now i hear about SATA2 ?? SCSI drives are too small and too expensive for me.. so what would be the best SATA or SATA 2 HD to get what is differanve between sata and sata 2
Simply because SATA (Raptor) is faster. Not utilizing the FULL theoretical bandwidth spec is irrelevant. What is relevant is ~90% of SATA150 is still more than ~90% of IDE ATA133. Most reliable benchmarking programs put ATA100/ATA133 at about 58-62mb/sec xfer speeds and the WD740 at about 72-74mb/sec. Now I can only speak for the WD360 and WD740 SATA since I haven't done any other SATA test comparisons against IDE, but the WD Raptors are much faster in all benchmarking programs than IDE drives, be it ATA100 or ATA133. In bench's like PCmark and Winbench, the WD740 simply smoked the other drives, even the WD360.
So just because they can't reach 150mb/sec xfer speeds, is not the point. The point is, they are STILL faster.
As to how many years we are away from being able to fully utilize the bandwidth....well, all PC hardware has a history of over-confident specs, always published as theoretical and not ACTUAL speeds or specs seen in actual use. Power supplies rarely ever match their rated specs, modems never have reached their download/upload specs, etc.
Not with a Native controller, only with 3rd-Party controllers. When I use the Promise SATA controller on my mobo I need to do the F6 BS. When I use the Native ICH5 Intel, I don't.
Nope, I made a slipstreamed XP Pro CD w/SP2 built in and still requires the 3rd-Party controllers on floppy (if that's the controller you use).
SATA is not hot-swappable on my mobo regardless of controller. (P4C800-E Deluxe).
Be careful of all the mislabeling of the new SATA protocol. SATA2 or SATAII does NOT necessarily mean SATA300. Some manufacturers are trying to use SATA2 as some big selling point, when it's NOT if it's still only SATA150.
Well that sounds logical. I thought someone posted in this thread the URL for the SATA site, but I can't find it now. Try this site: http://www.serialata.org/
Some of that site's area is members only! But the info is all over the web if you search for it. Again, SATA300 is NOT FASTER necessarily. The new Raptor X WD1500 is SATA150 and it's still the faster than any SATA300 drive for one example. There's even some "plain jane" 7200rpm SATA150 drives by Maxtor, WD and others that are faster than the SATA300 drives. So apparently the SATA300 controllers are not up to par yet, I would guess that's the weak link now. I wouldn't get one now unless you saw reviews on a specific drive WITH your specific mobo or controller that that said it was faster than any SATA150 HD.
so any recomendations on what drive is good.. i just want a faster drive that wont cost me an arm and a leg.. i need a large drive that will access data fast.. I cant afford a SCSI so SATA is my next choice.. minimum 300gig and fast access.. did mention fast access.. lol any recomendations are greatly appreciated.. thanx
What drive are you using now? Like I said, the fastest non-SCSI HD on the planet now is the WD1500 (SATA) Raptor X, but it's very expensive. $282 is the cheapest price I've seen on it. The only HD's faster than are the highest-end 15k RPM SCSI drives, and only in a couple of tests related to server apps. I'm sure those SCSI drives would cost more than the WD1500. You need to look at that link someone posted and compare the test results on all the benchmarks*, then look up the sizes and prices on the drives and see what you want to pay. Top speeds usually = high cost.
* http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html . They don't give the sizes of the drives in the drop-down, so you're just going to have to look them up to get the sizes and the prices, but many of them you can tell the size by their model #'s.
The WD740 has dropped in price a lot and it's faster than anything out there (except of course the WD1500 and again the hi-end 15k RPM SCSI drives in server tests), but it's only 74gb. BTW, FWIW, the new Maxtor Ultra16 ATA133 IDE drive (250gb/16mb buffer) isn't any faster than the old Maxtor 8mb buffer 80gb ATA133 drives, I ran tests on them. So at least you know that much now.
It also depends on what type of apps you're going to be running. If just email and the internet, and some basic image editing (like me), you'll want a drive with the highest maximum read and write rates. If you're doing extensive DV transfers and dealing with huge files, you're going to want a drive with the highest AVERAGE rates. Etc, etc. Ironically, the fastest drive in BOTH of those tests (Read AND Write) is the WD1500 Raptor X. It's only 150gb though.
Also, "fast access" times isn't all it's cracked up to be. More important is the rotational platter speeds (that's one of the reasons the 10k RPM Raptors are so fast), and the Areal Density spec. Most manufacturers don't divulge their AD specs. So the easiest thing to do is just refer to benchmarks, like at the link I provided. http://storagereview.com/ also has great test results for HD's.
home office type apps and online gaming is what i mostly do.. my wife does alot of home office work.. i do alot of online gaming.. my problem with the drive i have now.. is that most of my games i get from steam.. so they access the hard drive alot during play to get the info as they are not written from a cd they are written to my hard drive so i need a drive that will access data fast
i saw a review on here about a seagate 7200.9 baracuda the capacity of the drive is great but i didnt se too much info on data read and write speeds. and im sorry im running a western digital HD right now it is a WD1200AB-22CBA1
The Raptor isn't faster because it is SATA, hope you know. I think the argument all along was that with drives that have equal specs but use different methods (PATA, SATA) perform equally.
However, drives that have better specs/more features but only use SATA will of course perform better.
I bught my Hitachi 7k80 SATA II because it was the best drive I could find for $55. (sans rebate) It seems to be faster than my 10k U160 SCSI drives running on plain old integrated SATA, embarrasing to say. I'll have to see about a SATA II adapter card for it...
.bh.
.bh.
Right, I wasn't trying to imply that. Like I said yesterday it's rotational speeds and areal density that also plays a greater part. The WD740 isn't even a real SATA drive, it's a bridged ATA. I haven't done any comparison tests between exact same-spec and same model drives that only differ by interface. I would still say the SATA should be faster because it's a faster interface.
I think you should see a decent speed increase with a Raptor. They do have very fast access times, but that 10k RPM should help a lot with the gaming. NewEgg right now has the WD740 Raptor for $130 AR, and it's the fastest FLC0 version according to user reviews. Two of those in RAID would be a killer, and still cheaper than one WD1500 (currently at $278). I'm using an FLA0 version and I'm tempted to get one of these FLC0 versions.
im new to all this stuff. is there one site that will explain this.. basicaly what i need to know is what are the differances (good/bad points) between the western digital raptor, the caviar, the seagate barracuta.. etc..
Like I said, that's the version of the drive.
They are something like WD740GT-00FLA0, or 00FLA1, 00FLC0, etc. The "FLC0" versions are the fastest and by a considerable amount too.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter