-
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.
This will never be settled! Do you use an all SCSI or all IDE based sytem and why?
Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Radboy,
Yikes, that's long. Maybe I shold give you my phone number 😛
<< I'm trying to figure out Modus' method for evaluating an acceptable perf/price model. He appears to be using a *linear* model, which means a 10% price premium must be accompanied by a corresponding 10% improvement in performance for the upgrade to be "worth it". . . Correct Modus? >>
That is the fundamental economic rule, correct.
<< Let's use a Tekram DC-390U2W adapter (~$125), and a Quantum 10K II (~$180 after rebate) as a starting point. ~$300 total. . . Any problem? >>
Not really. Though I would quibble with the rebate.
<< StorageReview says seek/access times are the most important metric in disk drive performance, so let's focus on that. No prob? >>
Well yes, access times are the most important factor, but by no means the only factor. STR still accounts for something, as shown by WB99 and other real world tests. I used seek times earlier because of the confidence I have in SCSI's laughable inability to show enough of a performance advantage. If you want to use seek times and throw out every other benchmark (I can understand this as it's the most SCSI-friendly strategy), it's not really fair but I'll allow for the time being because I know SCSI still won't have a chance.
<< An IDE drive cost ~$100 (I think this is the number you're using). >>
According to PriceWatch, yes. And something you conviniently neglected to mention is that the SCSI drive is only 9G while the IDE presents over twice the storage space, 20G. Oddly, enough that is what hard drives are for: storage.
<< So the SCSI config mentioned above is ~3X more expensive. >>
Not if you find a rebate deal on the IDE, which you didn't attempt to do. But fine, whatever, 3x is close enough.
<< If I read u correctly, you seem to imply that anything less than a 24.0ms access time for the IDE drive would make it the better choice (in your book). Correct? If not, could you pls clarify? >>
Correct PROVIDED we follow your (somewhat unfair) hypothetical conditions: that seek times are the only performance factor (which they are not), that storage space is irrelevant (which it is not), and that rebates are unavailable on IDE drive (which they are not). So yes, in your mythical universe, the IDE drive will still be a better value so long as its access time was less than 24.0ms.
Basic consumer economics.
<< Do you factor in anything for the fact that SCSI drives are more reliable than IDE drives? >>
Sure, if you want. Just calculate the percentage chance of an IDE drive not failing before obsolescence and the precentage chance of a SCSI drive not failing before obsolescence (both will be higher than 95%), and use those as modifiers to the performance figure. So an IDE drive would score 150 on IOMETER but end up at 143 due to its reliability modifier, while a SCSI drive would score 300 but end up at say, 298.
Of course, this is assuming you can get accurate failure rate data on modern hard drives, which no one really has, except the drive manufacturers who understandibly aren't motivated to provide it.
Besides, the key component of reliability is the extra work a less reliable product makes its user do in maintenance. Well, an IDE drive has the same regular data backup maintenance as a SCSI drive, so in daily use they are identical in that respect.
Basically, reliability is too dificult to quantify, and even if you could, hard drive reliability these days is probably so good that you're looking at stastical deviations between brands and technologies that end up larger than the margins of error.
<< What about e-commence web-servers? .. where downtime could translate into lost revenue/profits? Do you think SCSI drives would be a smart choice there? >>
Does anyone here run an entreprise web server? Even so, no sensible webmaster would be content with a single SCSI or IDE drive running the server. Thus, a backup drive ensures that either technology will deliver 100% uptime.
<< Do you factor in anything for the fact that SCSI is a multitasking interface, while IDE is a single-tasking interface? .. for the person who has the financial where withal to afford multiple drives. >>
Sure, we'll factor it in, as long as you factor in the added cost for the second drive. What's that? You'd rather not? Understandable.
<< Do you factor in anything for the fact that systems run from SCSI drives are simply more *enjoyable* to use, due to their increased responsiveness? >>
That kind of enjoyment is simply performance perceived, and performance is already factored in. Actually, factoring in any human element at all is dangerous because it leads to the placebo effect: a person could be told he now has a SCSI drive and would suddenly think his system feels more responsive. That's why we stick to benchmarks with computer hardware instead of "eyeballing" or the "warm fuzzy test" I desribed above.
<< Do you take into account what individual users *do* with their systems? For example, my grandmother, who only uses her PC to check email & surf the web to find the latest bingo scores, prolly is wasting her time/money with SCSI .. while someone who's editing video, or heavy multitasking would better use its advantages. >>
No one can care about their hard drive's performance more than 100%. And in the price/performance equation, performance is factored in at 100% (1). But actually, that ignores the vast majority of people who don't care 100% about performance, like your grandmother. However, the price/performance equation still ends up the same because performance is modified by the same proportional amount for both drives, keeping the result stable.
<< Are you saying that *every* person who buys a SCSI adapter & a SCSI device makes a poor buying decision? >>
Not quite. What I am saying is that, given today's price/performance data, anyone who buys, new, a SCSI adapter and a SCSI hard drive as opposed to an IDE hard drive, for the purposes of practical use, has made a less than optimal buying decision.
Exempt is anyone receiving a special one-time deal siginificantly below market value, anyone purchasing hardware for a true life and death environment, and anyone purchasing hardware for personal curiousity, gratification, or insecurity.
<< Do you agree/concede that SCSI is a better-performing/more-advanced interface? >>
Yup.
<< and that SCSI drives offer better performance than IDE drives? >>
Sure.
<< You simply disagree on the relative VALUE merits, yes? >>
Ah, but you make it sound like there's room for diagreement on value. There isn't. Practical buying is practical buying. If that's what you're doing, value is king.
<< Do you agree that IDE drives are manufactured (first & foremost) with VALUE (not performance) in mind .. while SCSI drives are manufactured (first & foremost) with PERFORMANCE + RELIABILITY in mind (not value)? >>
Not really. It's all relative. Certainly SCSI drives don't focus as much on value, but to an extent they're constrained by the fact that even the most obtuse SCSI disciples still have a brain. They won't pay more than a certain amount. So SCSI drives are made with value in mind, too, it's just that they're made with less.
<< If so, by definition, this means you are in the IDE camp, cuz you (most certainly) focus on VALUE (first & foremost, not performance), while others here focus on PERFORMANCE (first & foremost, not value). This would precipitate a fundamental rift. >>
It sure does -- a rift between those for whom the computer is a means to and end and those for whom it is the end of the means. In other words, those who treat computers as toys and those who treat them as tools. Again, I don't begrudge people their toys I simply ask that they not call them tools.
<< No one in the SCSI camp is saying that it offers better VALUE than IDE. >>
Then what are you jabbering about?
<< They're merely saying that it offers better PERFORMANCE .. and that the price premium they pay is worth it FOR THEM >>
And as long as the try to justify the price premium with rational arguments, they're wrong. Only by crossing to the "warm fuzzy" side are they making a valid argument.
<< btw - my position is, again, that those who want the performance advantages that SCSI offers would be best served by taking the best from both worlds .. a small (9GB) SCSI boot drive, to run the OS, apps & swap/page file, where it'll be of max benefit, and keep their IDE drive for storing non-performance related files >>
You're just making it worse on SCSI by trying to compromise like this. Now, instead of 300% more expensive with minimal performance returns, the new SCSI+IDE combo becomes 400% more expensive and has only equivalent storage to show for it.
<< Have you ever actually owned a SCSI drive or controller? >>
Absolutely. But that's irrelevant. I don't need to own a GeForce2 Ultra to know its exact price/performance ratio and to know that it is an utter waste of money.
<< Some feel that blazingly fast access times + increased reliability + multitasking + the enjoyment that comes from increased system responsiveness + the ability to add many devices without taking more IRQs + other intangibles = whatever price they had to pay >>
And they are wrong. Not to mention that multitasking is a nebulous advantage that cannot be objectively demonstrated as better than current IDE systems which feature DMA busmastering and BurnProof technology, that enjoyment is just another word for performance and doesn't belong in the list twice, and that modern ACPI computers require only one IRQ for the entire PnP spectrum let alone an extra drive.
<< That's nothing more than your opinion, and you can't prove that your model of VALUE is any better than theirs >>
It's not my model of value any more than 2 + 2 is my model of addition. Any first year economics course will explain price/performance curves and how they affect consumer spending. The sensible consumers are the ones that take a detached, unemotional view of buying. This leads to money saved and spent elsewhere where it can better accumulate.
<< Value is a personal thing. >>
Nope. Value is objective and absolute. It follows rules and formulas. You're confusing value with desire. There's nothing wrong with desiring SCSI and finally breaking down and ordering it, and then liking it. But don't try to defend the purchase as anything rational.
<< If the SCSI user ever feels he's not getting his money's worth from his investment, he can sell his drive & adapter .. but he doesn't. >>
Sure he does. How do you think I got mine? I sure as hell didn't pay market value for it.
<< SCSI users are simply more interested in PERFORMANCE + RELIABILITY than VALUE. Why does that seem to bother you so much? >>
It doesn't. It's the people who try to justify their purchases as practical and sensible that deserve to be shown up. Those who simply accept SCSI as an expensive toy are above reproach.
<< Maybe they like Cuban cigars and fine cognac brandy. Maybe their paycheck (or trust fund) allows them to indulge in things the average person can't. >>
Again, you are turning this into a budget issue. It's not. I don't care whether you see yourself and other SCSI advocates as Cuban-smoking, cognac-drinking good old boys and IDE fans as Walmart-shopping, domestic-driving blue collar schmucks.
You really insult us when you insinuate we can't afford SCSI. I personally could build three SCSI systems at the drop of a hat. The reason I don't is not that I can't afford to spend that money on SCSI, it's simply that there are so much more effective ways to spend it.
<< Yes, IDE wins the VALUE issue. We freely & willingly concede that. >>
Good. Now that we have that on record, all that's left is the philosophy, not the technology.
<< It's for the person with usage patterns sophisticated enuf to put it to use. >>
As above, there's no usage greater than 100%. And regardless of the usage pattern, the relative performance of the two technologies remains the same.
<< Maybe it's cuz we can afford to. Maybe it's nothing more than a classic case of resentment between the haves vs. the have-nots on a microscopic level. Maybe that's what got your panties in such a knot. >>
I can't believe I'm hearing this.
Modus
Yikes, that's long. Maybe I shold give you my phone number 😛
<< I'm trying to figure out Modus' method for evaluating an acceptable perf/price model. He appears to be using a *linear* model, which means a 10% price premium must be accompanied by a corresponding 10% improvement in performance for the upgrade to be "worth it". . . Correct Modus? >>
That is the fundamental economic rule, correct.
<< Let's use a Tekram DC-390U2W adapter (~$125), and a Quantum 10K II (~$180 after rebate) as a starting point. ~$300 total. . . Any problem? >>
Not really. Though I would quibble with the rebate.
<< StorageReview says seek/access times are the most important metric in disk drive performance, so let's focus on that. No prob? >>
Well yes, access times are the most important factor, but by no means the only factor. STR still accounts for something, as shown by WB99 and other real world tests. I used seek times earlier because of the confidence I have in SCSI's laughable inability to show enough of a performance advantage. If you want to use seek times and throw out every other benchmark (I can understand this as it's the most SCSI-friendly strategy), it's not really fair but I'll allow for the time being because I know SCSI still won't have a chance.
<< An IDE drive cost ~$100 (I think this is the number you're using). >>
According to PriceWatch, yes. And something you conviniently neglected to mention is that the SCSI drive is only 9G while the IDE presents over twice the storage space, 20G. Oddly, enough that is what hard drives are for: storage.
<< So the SCSI config mentioned above is ~3X more expensive. >>
Not if you find a rebate deal on the IDE, which you didn't attempt to do. But fine, whatever, 3x is close enough.
<< If I read u correctly, you seem to imply that anything less than a 24.0ms access time for the IDE drive would make it the better choice (in your book). Correct? If not, could you pls clarify? >>
Correct PROVIDED we follow your (somewhat unfair) hypothetical conditions: that seek times are the only performance factor (which they are not), that storage space is irrelevant (which it is not), and that rebates are unavailable on IDE drive (which they are not). So yes, in your mythical universe, the IDE drive will still be a better value so long as its access time was less than 24.0ms.
Basic consumer economics.
<< Do you factor in anything for the fact that SCSI drives are more reliable than IDE drives? >>
Sure, if you want. Just calculate the percentage chance of an IDE drive not failing before obsolescence and the precentage chance of a SCSI drive not failing before obsolescence (both will be higher than 95%), and use those as modifiers to the performance figure. So an IDE drive would score 150 on IOMETER but end up at 143 due to its reliability modifier, while a SCSI drive would score 300 but end up at say, 298.
Of course, this is assuming you can get accurate failure rate data on modern hard drives, which no one really has, except the drive manufacturers who understandibly aren't motivated to provide it.
Besides, the key component of reliability is the extra work a less reliable product makes its user do in maintenance. Well, an IDE drive has the same regular data backup maintenance as a SCSI drive, so in daily use they are identical in that respect.
Basically, reliability is too dificult to quantify, and even if you could, hard drive reliability these days is probably so good that you're looking at stastical deviations between brands and technologies that end up larger than the margins of error.
<< What about e-commence web-servers? .. where downtime could translate into lost revenue/profits? Do you think SCSI drives would be a smart choice there? >>
Does anyone here run an entreprise web server? Even so, no sensible webmaster would be content with a single SCSI or IDE drive running the server. Thus, a backup drive ensures that either technology will deliver 100% uptime.
<< Do you factor in anything for the fact that SCSI is a multitasking interface, while IDE is a single-tasking interface? .. for the person who has the financial where withal to afford multiple drives. >>
Sure, we'll factor it in, as long as you factor in the added cost for the second drive. What's that? You'd rather not? Understandable.
<< Do you factor in anything for the fact that systems run from SCSI drives are simply more *enjoyable* to use, due to their increased responsiveness? >>
That kind of enjoyment is simply performance perceived, and performance is already factored in. Actually, factoring in any human element at all is dangerous because it leads to the placebo effect: a person could be told he now has a SCSI drive and would suddenly think his system feels more responsive. That's why we stick to benchmarks with computer hardware instead of "eyeballing" or the "warm fuzzy test" I desribed above.
<< Do you take into account what individual users *do* with their systems? For example, my grandmother, who only uses her PC to check email & surf the web to find the latest bingo scores, prolly is wasting her time/money with SCSI .. while someone who's editing video, or heavy multitasking would better use its advantages. >>
No one can care about their hard drive's performance more than 100%. And in the price/performance equation, performance is factored in at 100% (1). But actually, that ignores the vast majority of people who don't care 100% about performance, like your grandmother. However, the price/performance equation still ends up the same because performance is modified by the same proportional amount for both drives, keeping the result stable.
<< Are you saying that *every* person who buys a SCSI adapter & a SCSI device makes a poor buying decision? >>
Not quite. What I am saying is that, given today's price/performance data, anyone who buys, new, a SCSI adapter and a SCSI hard drive as opposed to an IDE hard drive, for the purposes of practical use, has made a less than optimal buying decision.
Exempt is anyone receiving a special one-time deal siginificantly below market value, anyone purchasing hardware for a true life and death environment, and anyone purchasing hardware for personal curiousity, gratification, or insecurity.
<< Do you agree/concede that SCSI is a better-performing/more-advanced interface? >>
Yup.
<< and that SCSI drives offer better performance than IDE drives? >>
Sure.
<< You simply disagree on the relative VALUE merits, yes? >>
Ah, but you make it sound like there's room for diagreement on value. There isn't. Practical buying is practical buying. If that's what you're doing, value is king.
<< Do you agree that IDE drives are manufactured (first & foremost) with VALUE (not performance) in mind .. while SCSI drives are manufactured (first & foremost) with PERFORMANCE + RELIABILITY in mind (not value)? >>
Not really. It's all relative. Certainly SCSI drives don't focus as much on value, but to an extent they're constrained by the fact that even the most obtuse SCSI disciples still have a brain. They won't pay more than a certain amount. So SCSI drives are made with value in mind, too, it's just that they're made with less.
<< If so, by definition, this means you are in the IDE camp, cuz you (most certainly) focus on VALUE (first & foremost, not performance), while others here focus on PERFORMANCE (first & foremost, not value). This would precipitate a fundamental rift. >>
It sure does -- a rift between those for whom the computer is a means to and end and those for whom it is the end of the means. In other words, those who treat computers as toys and those who treat them as tools. Again, I don't begrudge people their toys I simply ask that they not call them tools.
<< No one in the SCSI camp is saying that it offers better VALUE than IDE. >>
Then what are you jabbering about?
<< They're merely saying that it offers better PERFORMANCE .. and that the price premium they pay is worth it FOR THEM >>
And as long as the try to justify the price premium with rational arguments, they're wrong. Only by crossing to the "warm fuzzy" side are they making a valid argument.
<< btw - my position is, again, that those who want the performance advantages that SCSI offers would be best served by taking the best from both worlds .. a small (9GB) SCSI boot drive, to run the OS, apps & swap/page file, where it'll be of max benefit, and keep their IDE drive for storing non-performance related files >>
You're just making it worse on SCSI by trying to compromise like this. Now, instead of 300% more expensive with minimal performance returns, the new SCSI+IDE combo becomes 400% more expensive and has only equivalent storage to show for it.
<< Have you ever actually owned a SCSI drive or controller? >>
Absolutely. But that's irrelevant. I don't need to own a GeForce2 Ultra to know its exact price/performance ratio and to know that it is an utter waste of money.
<< Some feel that blazingly fast access times + increased reliability + multitasking + the enjoyment that comes from increased system responsiveness + the ability to add many devices without taking more IRQs + other intangibles = whatever price they had to pay >>
And they are wrong. Not to mention that multitasking is a nebulous advantage that cannot be objectively demonstrated as better than current IDE systems which feature DMA busmastering and BurnProof technology, that enjoyment is just another word for performance and doesn't belong in the list twice, and that modern ACPI computers require only one IRQ for the entire PnP spectrum let alone an extra drive.
<< That's nothing more than your opinion, and you can't prove that your model of VALUE is any better than theirs >>
It's not my model of value any more than 2 + 2 is my model of addition. Any first year economics course will explain price/performance curves and how they affect consumer spending. The sensible consumers are the ones that take a detached, unemotional view of buying. This leads to money saved and spent elsewhere where it can better accumulate.
<< Value is a personal thing. >>
Nope. Value is objective and absolute. It follows rules and formulas. You're confusing value with desire. There's nothing wrong with desiring SCSI and finally breaking down and ordering it, and then liking it. But don't try to defend the purchase as anything rational.
<< If the SCSI user ever feels he's not getting his money's worth from his investment, he can sell his drive & adapter .. but he doesn't. >>
Sure he does. How do you think I got mine? I sure as hell didn't pay market value for it.
<< SCSI users are simply more interested in PERFORMANCE + RELIABILITY than VALUE. Why does that seem to bother you so much? >>
It doesn't. It's the people who try to justify their purchases as practical and sensible that deserve to be shown up. Those who simply accept SCSI as an expensive toy are above reproach.
<< Maybe they like Cuban cigars and fine cognac brandy. Maybe their paycheck (or trust fund) allows them to indulge in things the average person can't. >>
Again, you are turning this into a budget issue. It's not. I don't care whether you see yourself and other SCSI advocates as Cuban-smoking, cognac-drinking good old boys and IDE fans as Walmart-shopping, domestic-driving blue collar schmucks.
You really insult us when you insinuate we can't afford SCSI. I personally could build three SCSI systems at the drop of a hat. The reason I don't is not that I can't afford to spend that money on SCSI, it's simply that there are so much more effective ways to spend it.
<< Yes, IDE wins the VALUE issue. We freely & willingly concede that. >>
Good. Now that we have that on record, all that's left is the philosophy, not the technology.
<< It's for the person with usage patterns sophisticated enuf to put it to use. >>
As above, there's no usage greater than 100%. And regardless of the usage pattern, the relative performance of the two technologies remains the same.
<< Maybe it's cuz we can afford to. Maybe it's nothing more than a classic case of resentment between the haves vs. the have-nots on a microscopic level. Maybe that's what got your panties in such a knot. >>
I can't believe I'm hearing this.
Modus
Sir Fredrick
Guest
Modus: blah blah blah... price/performance...blah blah blah...value...blah blah blah price/performance... ok ok we get it. IDE is cheaper, and if you're a poor SOB, then you're better off spending your money at walmart. And we don't care, we still think SCSI is cool, and fun, and it gives us the ever coveted MORE POWER. Is it a toy? Is it a tool? Who cares, we like to get optimal performance from our machines, and we have decided that the performance we get out of it is well worth it. Do you only buy hand tools because they are cheaper, or do you have a few power tools?
You dodged my question about the duron vs. thunderbird systems. Granted, it was not much in line with reality, but I was trying to prove a point. You would not spend 100% more for 50% more performance, even if 100% turned out to only be a very small chunk of change. Some of us are willing to spend the extra money for performance. That does not make us foolish. It means we love our computers, and we want them to perform well. A good SCSI drive enhances overall system performance in a way that additional memory or a faster processor just cannot do.
Just out of curiosity Modus, how much memory do you run? In Win98 it was shown that the biggest performance boost results in going from 32MB to 64MB of RAM...do you stop there since that is the peak in price/performance?
NFS4, you have violated Modus's much valued price/performance ratios with so many other hardware purchases, I don't know why you feel so inclined to stick by it this time. 🙂
You dodged my question about the duron vs. thunderbird systems. Granted, it was not much in line with reality, but I was trying to prove a point. You would not spend 100% more for 50% more performance, even if 100% turned out to only be a very small chunk of change. Some of us are willing to spend the extra money for performance. That does not make us foolish. It means we love our computers, and we want them to perform well. A good SCSI drive enhances overall system performance in a way that additional memory or a faster processor just cannot do.
Just out of curiosity Modus, how much memory do you run? In Win98 it was shown that the biggest performance boost results in going from 32MB to 64MB of RAM...do you stop there since that is the peak in price/performance?
NFS4, you have violated Modus's much valued price/performance ratios with so many other hardware purchases, I don't know why you feel so inclined to stick by it this time. 🙂
MightyMightyMe
Member
IDE all the way. Its jumped leaps and bounds recently and the quality continues to improve. Its cheaper, more widely available, and doesn't take an extra PCI slot.
but if I had the money,
I think I might go SCSI.
but if I had the money,
I think I might go SCSI.
man, these are freakin' monster posts.
modus, let's take how much i paid for my hard disks. i paid 200 for my 18 gig quantum about 1.5 years ago and 180 for my 9 gig ibm 2 years ago. about the same time the fastest eide hard drives were 5400 rpm. by now, they would've been dogs compared to the new eide offerings, and accordingly, one would be inclined to upgrade using your logic since they are so cheap, and economically it is better to spend in short bursts and spend less in each burst than to put a lot of money in one investment for the long run.
a new 30 gig hard drive, one of decent performance, goes for about 150, according to pricewatch, and in this case, an ibm deskstar gxp 7200 rpm drive. now, if you want to get the performance i had 2 years ago, you'd have to fork out another 150 dollars just so you can match the performance of the scsi disks. even then, the seek times are higher on the eide, although the str is probably a bit better. for argument's sake, lets say the performance is equal, even though seek times are more important than str to a certain extent. about 1.5 to 2 years ago, 30 gigs of storage for eide hard drives would've been in the realm of 200 bucks, roughly 1/2 of what i paid. now, you buy another drive for another 150 bucks, and you have performance that's pretty much equal to my scsi hard drives.
overall, you've spent 350 dollars, whereas i've spent 380 bucks. a difference of 30 bucks, and i've had the performance just attained by the eide hard drive for roughly two years. granted that you now have 60 gigs in your posession (30 gigs of crap, 30 gigs of decent performance), you have spent the same amount of money that i have, for performance equal to what i have. anybody in their right mind who is somewhat performance conscious is not going to run their main system off of a 5400 rpm, 2 year old eide drive when the newer eide drives are so much faster.
so for 30 bucks, i save the pain of installing a new drive (not much of a pain, i know, but still extra work), reinstalling all of my software onto the new drive, resetting up my hardware drivers, reinstalling os, etc... and if you want to say that you have ghost or another hard disk duplicating program just for this, then the money you paid for it already puts you at the same price that i paid for my 2 hard disks, if not more. now, you might argue that you could use that extra 30 gigs for extra storage, but honestly, who's going to store anything besides media on something that slow? some people might, but those that do so are just wasting their money buying the 30 gig new eide hard drives that are out there. if they're not that performance conscious, they should buy a 40 gig 5400 rpm drive instead since speed isn't that important.
now i know it's stupid to argue scsi is cheaper than eide, but when you consider how often you have to upgrade an eide drive just to match performance of scsi drives a couple of years prior, the money you spend in those short bursts adds up. what would you rather buy? a m4 bmw and have it be fast for a long time, or just buy these little civics that undergo upgrades every so often, so that some time down the road they will be just as fast as the bmw. multiply the number of times you bought new civics by their cost just to get a newer one that matches the performance of the m4, and the total cost will be pretty similar. and by the time a civic matches a m4, there's already another m4 variant out there that will smoke the civic. and the person who bought the m4, like me, has had the performance for quite a while.
modus, let's take how much i paid for my hard disks. i paid 200 for my 18 gig quantum about 1.5 years ago and 180 for my 9 gig ibm 2 years ago. about the same time the fastest eide hard drives were 5400 rpm. by now, they would've been dogs compared to the new eide offerings, and accordingly, one would be inclined to upgrade using your logic since they are so cheap, and economically it is better to spend in short bursts and spend less in each burst than to put a lot of money in one investment for the long run.
a new 30 gig hard drive, one of decent performance, goes for about 150, according to pricewatch, and in this case, an ibm deskstar gxp 7200 rpm drive. now, if you want to get the performance i had 2 years ago, you'd have to fork out another 150 dollars just so you can match the performance of the scsi disks. even then, the seek times are higher on the eide, although the str is probably a bit better. for argument's sake, lets say the performance is equal, even though seek times are more important than str to a certain extent. about 1.5 to 2 years ago, 30 gigs of storage for eide hard drives would've been in the realm of 200 bucks, roughly 1/2 of what i paid. now, you buy another drive for another 150 bucks, and you have performance that's pretty much equal to my scsi hard drives.
overall, you've spent 350 dollars, whereas i've spent 380 bucks. a difference of 30 bucks, and i've had the performance just attained by the eide hard drive for roughly two years. granted that you now have 60 gigs in your posession (30 gigs of crap, 30 gigs of decent performance), you have spent the same amount of money that i have, for performance equal to what i have. anybody in their right mind who is somewhat performance conscious is not going to run their main system off of a 5400 rpm, 2 year old eide drive when the newer eide drives are so much faster.
so for 30 bucks, i save the pain of installing a new drive (not much of a pain, i know, but still extra work), reinstalling all of my software onto the new drive, resetting up my hardware drivers, reinstalling os, etc... and if you want to say that you have ghost or another hard disk duplicating program just for this, then the money you paid for it already puts you at the same price that i paid for my 2 hard disks, if not more. now, you might argue that you could use that extra 30 gigs for extra storage, but honestly, who's going to store anything besides media on something that slow? some people might, but those that do so are just wasting their money buying the 30 gig new eide hard drives that are out there. if they're not that performance conscious, they should buy a 40 gig 5400 rpm drive instead since speed isn't that important.
now i know it's stupid to argue scsi is cheaper than eide, but when you consider how often you have to upgrade an eide drive just to match performance of scsi drives a couple of years prior, the money you spend in those short bursts adds up. what would you rather buy? a m4 bmw and have it be fast for a long time, or just buy these little civics that undergo upgrades every so often, so that some time down the road they will be just as fast as the bmw. multiply the number of times you bought new civics by their cost just to get a newer one that matches the performance of the m4, and the total cost will be pretty similar. and by the time a civic matches a m4, there's already another m4 variant out there that will smoke the civic. and the person who bought the m4, like me, has had the performance for quite a while.
<< IDE systems which feature DMA busmastering and BurnProof technology >>
My point: Those burners are expensive. Plus why use something when you dont have to.
A cd that was created with say 3 burn-proof interruptions will be slightly different than one that is not. Let's take this further, a perfect example would be my car.
1986 Caprice. Big Boat. Not a racer by any means, but 250lb/f of torque @ 2400rpm.
That means whenever I hit the highway, I NEVER have to downshift from 4th to pass.
Why use something to compensate for something else (smaller cars with junk engines downshifting) when you dont have to?
For example, if you do a lot of burning....why would you use anything less than SCSI?
IMO that'd be stupid.
NFS4
No Lifer
<< NFS4, you have violated Modus's much valued price/performance ratios with so many other hardware purchases, I don't know why you feel so inclined to stick by it this time. >>
How do you figure? Was it my Duron and KT7A-RAID? I think not, my GeForce 2 GTS...doubt it. What could it possibly be? Hell, it took me a year and half to upgrade my computer so I don't know what the heck you're talking about :Q
Degenerate
Platinum Member
SCSI if i have the money , i am on a scsi CDR but Hd is IDE
Sir Fredrick
Guest
NFS4, the price/performance ratio of a RAID setup is awful.
I'm sure there is a video card with a better price/performance radio than a 64MB Geforce2 GTS
256MB SDRAM? Like I mentioned earlier, the biggest performance boost is going from 32MB to 64MB...anything above that gives diminishing returns. Price/performance.
Hmm...what's the price/performance ratio on your iPaq? 🙂
I'm not saying I think any of that stuff is wasteful, but Modus could argue that you were foolish to buy them since they don't necessarily meet the golden ratio of price/performance.
I'm sure there is a video card with a better price/performance radio than a 64MB Geforce2 GTS
256MB SDRAM? Like I mentioned earlier, the biggest performance boost is going from 32MB to 64MB...anything above that gives diminishing returns. Price/performance.
Hmm...what's the price/performance ratio on your iPaq? 🙂
I'm not saying I think any of that stuff is wasteful, but Modus could argue that you were foolish to buy them since they don't necessarily meet the golden ratio of price/performance.
NFS4
No Lifer
<< NFS4, the price/performance ratio of a RAID setup is awful. >>
I only paid $90 for the second hard drive...much cheaper than going SCSI and I double my hard drive space and increase my performance.
<< I'm sure there is a video card with a better price/performance radio than a 64MB Geforce2 GTS >>
I didn't pay for it
<< 256MB SDRAM? Like I mentioned earlier, the biggest performance boost is going from 32MB to 64MB...anything above that gives diminishing returns. >>
Give me a fargin break. I can't believe you pulled out that crap. Trying running Win2k on ANYTHING less than 128MB. Even 128MB is pushing it if you ask me.
<< Hmm...what's the price/performance ratio on your iPaq? >>
The ratio is excellent if you ask me 🙂
Besides, we're talking hard drives, not video cards and iPAQ's 🙂
Sir Fredrick
Guest
NFS4, let's see some benchmarks on the 128MB vs. 256MB issue, I'd love to see if there's a 100% increase in performance, as there is a 100% difference in price. 😉
Personally I agree that it's better to have more RAM...heck I have 256 now with another 256 on the way, but I wonder what Modus has to say aobut the price/performance of adding RAM to the system. If his price/performance logic is good for hard drives it should be good for all the other computer stuff right? 🙂
Personally I agree that it's better to have more RAM...heck I have 256 now with another 256 on the way, but I wonder what Modus has to say aobut the price/performance of adding RAM to the system. If his price/performance logic is good for hard drives it should be good for all the other computer stuff right? 🙂
Modus,
Other than minor points which prolly aren't worth quibbling over, I think we agree .. at least, on the main issues .. that SCSI offers better performance & IDE offers better value.
You seem to be of the opinion that there's an absolute, linear model for calcualting value. I think you call it a 'fundamental economic rule'. Admittedly, I'm no Economics major, but I did have an Economics class, which I very much enjoyed (got an A), in which I recall discussing how each person views value differently.
I remember choices were made by individuals .. depending on their particular needs, their ability to pay (disposable income?), and a host of other factors. If I get some extra time, I may dig up the book and quote you chapter & verse.
So you are saying that your model of value is not your own creation? .. that you didn't make it up yourself? .. that it is a universally-accepted model? Might you have any references to this universally-accepted model? Just one would be fine.
Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees F, 0 degrees C .. that's universally accepted. I could find a reference for that. If you could find a ref for your univerally-accepted model, that would be good. Otherwise, it seems like your trying to say your model of value is superior to everyone else's. You see how ppl might have a problem with that?
It's my opinion that there are too many variables associated with the purchase of any single product, and with every buyer, to use a single model to evaluate the optimal choice for every situation.
I'm curious what SCSI set up you have, how long you've had it, if you have it now, and your reasoning for the purchase. Do u mix IDE drives with your SCSI set-up?
To be honest, I'm having trouble seeing value-minded Modus Uriah Heep booting for a SCSI drive. I don't find it impossible, merely difficult .. VERY difficult.
I'm curious where you came up with your figures for reliability .. think u used 95%. Did you simply pull them out of your hat? .. do you have supporting references? Most people use MTBF specs when talking about reliability. Warranties are also an indicator. You mention neither.
I'm surprised at the problem you seem to have with the idea of a small (less expensive) SCSI boot drive to run the OS, apps, & swap/page file - where it'll do the most good - and a phatty IDE drive for mass storage. We obviously approach SCSI from diff angles.
You focus on VALUE, but I typically dialogue with ppl who already know they want the performance that SCSI offers, that they do the things that will take advantage of it (typically video editing), and can afford it .. (or at least claim to). These ppl always already have their own systems, which means they already have an IDE drive - at least one, sometimes two.
We try to find ways to maximize SCSI's perf without paying any more than we have to. I see SCSI's primary disadvantage as its co$t/GB ratio, compared to IDE drives. Since 9GB is plenty of space to run both W2K, WinMe, all your apps, & even a distro of Linux .. it seems obvious (to me) that the best approach is to take the best of both worlds .. and go with a small (9GB, maybe 18GB, certainly not 36GB), fast (10- or 15Kprm) SCSI boot drive, and keep the IDE drive(s) for cheap mass storage. Again, what's best (for the individual) depends the individual.
For the person who (already) knows he wants to upgrade to SCSI performance, do you disagree?
Another point that might be worth touching on .. is that, the cost of the SCSI adapter is a one-time deal, and that SCSI adapters have excellent longevity. For example, I still have/use the U2W adapter that I purchased >2 yrs ago. Seeing that even the fastest drive can barely sustain 40MB/s, it won't be the the limiting factor in my system any time soon.
That limits subsequent purchases of SCSI HHDs & optical drives to the price of the drive. I admit that IDE still holds the value ground, but, with the price of the adapter out of the way, not as much in its favor. And since SCSI is a multitasking interface, it will better utilize a 2nd (& 3rd) drive better than IDE (taking even more performance ground from IDE). Ppl could run their OS from one drive & their apps from the other. With 3 drives, they could move their swap/page file to a separate drive.
Don't jump up on your value soap-box, cuz I'm not challenging IDE's value supremacy. My point is merely that the SCSI interface holds advanatges greater than seek/access times & drive reliability.
No one challenges that IRQs are DESIGNED to be shared .. but in REALITY, every time you add an IRQ, you increase your chances of an IRQ conflict. I just saw a post HERE that mentioned an IRQ conflict. Have you never had a IRQ conflict?.
Re: << Are you saying that *every* person who buys a SCSI adapter & a SCSI device makes a poor buying decision? >>
Not quite. What I am saying is that, given today's price/performance data, anyone who buys, new, a SCSI adapter and a SCSI hard drive as opposed to an IDE hard drive, for the purposes of practical use, has made a less than optimal buying decision.
Admirable tact, and extra points for the tap dance. 🙂
Re: Ah, but you make it sound like there's room for disagreement on value. There isn't. Practical buying is practical buying. If that's what you're doing, value is king.
I disagree. Are you saying that the (specific) needs & the (specific) situation of the buyer has no impact on the merits of purchasing decision? A home well-suited for a family with 2 kids might not be prudent for a family with 5 kids. Maybe one kid has a limiting disability.
My point is that each buying decision is unique, with unique factors, and that no one single model can be accurately applied to ALL buying decisions. Every family has a myriad of details that need to be addressed. The same goes with every house/home.
Failure to address these unique factors - for both the product & the buyer - will lead to a 'less-than-optimal' buying decision. A hard drive is not a house, but the same principles apply .. (on a smaller scale).
Re: << Have you ever actually owned a SCSI drive or controller? >>
Absolutely. But that's irrelevant.
I disagree on the grounds that knowledge based on experience is superior to that based (merely) on intellect & reasoning .. which is why, unlike cirriculum as an undergrad, where they want you to *learn* everything possible, as a graduate student, they want you to *do* everything possible ..
.. which is also why employers put more stock in what someone has *done* (resume), over what they've *learned*. You don't need to have a SCSI system to put in your two cents, but if you want your opinions to have any *credibility* .. and you want to be able to discuss the nuances of the interface .. you need some first hand experience. How much credibility do you ascribe to the tactical opinions of a general who's never been in a war?
Re: multitasking is a nebulous advantage that cannot be objectively demonstrated as better than current IDE systems which feature DMA busmastering.
Are you denying that IDE is a single-tasking interface? Busmastering has nothing to do with multitasking.
Re: << Value is a personal thing. >>
Nope. Value is objective and absolute.
I disagree again .. and it seems that so do both Merriam & Webster. I looked up the word VALUE at dictionary.com
1st definition is:
1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, CONSIDERED to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
I ask you .. WHO is doing the CONSIDERING in that definition? Some 'fundamental economic rule'? .. or a PERSON? There's nothing "objective & absolute" about people.
The 3rd def'n = Worth in usefulness or importance TO THE POSSESSOR; utility or merit: the value of an education.
Notice the words: TO THE POSSESSOR .. again, no mention of any 'fundamental economic rule' .. only references to judgments made by people .. which are anything but "objective & absolute".
There are more examples I could use, but my point is made.
So now it seems like you're not only determining what value is for everybody, but that you also want to define our vocabulary.
Have you read David Copperfield? If so, what did you think of Uriah Heep? 🙂
Other than minor points which prolly aren't worth quibbling over, I think we agree .. at least, on the main issues .. that SCSI offers better performance & IDE offers better value.
You seem to be of the opinion that there's an absolute, linear model for calcualting value. I think you call it a 'fundamental economic rule'. Admittedly, I'm no Economics major, but I did have an Economics class, which I very much enjoyed (got an A), in which I recall discussing how each person views value differently.
I remember choices were made by individuals .. depending on their particular needs, their ability to pay (disposable income?), and a host of other factors. If I get some extra time, I may dig up the book and quote you chapter & verse.
So you are saying that your model of value is not your own creation? .. that you didn't make it up yourself? .. that it is a universally-accepted model? Might you have any references to this universally-accepted model? Just one would be fine.
Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees F, 0 degrees C .. that's universally accepted. I could find a reference for that. If you could find a ref for your univerally-accepted model, that would be good. Otherwise, it seems like your trying to say your model of value is superior to everyone else's. You see how ppl might have a problem with that?
It's my opinion that there are too many variables associated with the purchase of any single product, and with every buyer, to use a single model to evaluate the optimal choice for every situation.
I'm curious what SCSI set up you have, how long you've had it, if you have it now, and your reasoning for the purchase. Do u mix IDE drives with your SCSI set-up?
To be honest, I'm having trouble seeing value-minded Modus Uriah Heep booting for a SCSI drive. I don't find it impossible, merely difficult .. VERY difficult.
I'm curious where you came up with your figures for reliability .. think u used 95%. Did you simply pull them out of your hat? .. do you have supporting references? Most people use MTBF specs when talking about reliability. Warranties are also an indicator. You mention neither.
I'm surprised at the problem you seem to have with the idea of a small (less expensive) SCSI boot drive to run the OS, apps, & swap/page file - where it'll do the most good - and a phatty IDE drive for mass storage. We obviously approach SCSI from diff angles.
You focus on VALUE, but I typically dialogue with ppl who already know they want the performance that SCSI offers, that they do the things that will take advantage of it (typically video editing), and can afford it .. (or at least claim to). These ppl always already have their own systems, which means they already have an IDE drive - at least one, sometimes two.
We try to find ways to maximize SCSI's perf without paying any more than we have to. I see SCSI's primary disadvantage as its co$t/GB ratio, compared to IDE drives. Since 9GB is plenty of space to run both W2K, WinMe, all your apps, & even a distro of Linux .. it seems obvious (to me) that the best approach is to take the best of both worlds .. and go with a small (9GB, maybe 18GB, certainly not 36GB), fast (10- or 15Kprm) SCSI boot drive, and keep the IDE drive(s) for cheap mass storage. Again, what's best (for the individual) depends the individual.
For the person who (already) knows he wants to upgrade to SCSI performance, do you disagree?
Another point that might be worth touching on .. is that, the cost of the SCSI adapter is a one-time deal, and that SCSI adapters have excellent longevity. For example, I still have/use the U2W adapter that I purchased >2 yrs ago. Seeing that even the fastest drive can barely sustain 40MB/s, it won't be the the limiting factor in my system any time soon.
That limits subsequent purchases of SCSI HHDs & optical drives to the price of the drive. I admit that IDE still holds the value ground, but, with the price of the adapter out of the way, not as much in its favor. And since SCSI is a multitasking interface, it will better utilize a 2nd (& 3rd) drive better than IDE (taking even more performance ground from IDE). Ppl could run their OS from one drive & their apps from the other. With 3 drives, they could move their swap/page file to a separate drive.
Don't jump up on your value soap-box, cuz I'm not challenging IDE's value supremacy. My point is merely that the SCSI interface holds advanatges greater than seek/access times & drive reliability.
No one challenges that IRQs are DESIGNED to be shared .. but in REALITY, every time you add an IRQ, you increase your chances of an IRQ conflict. I just saw a post HERE that mentioned an IRQ conflict. Have you never had a IRQ conflict?.
Re: << Are you saying that *every* person who buys a SCSI adapter & a SCSI device makes a poor buying decision? >>
Not quite. What I am saying is that, given today's price/performance data, anyone who buys, new, a SCSI adapter and a SCSI hard drive as opposed to an IDE hard drive, for the purposes of practical use, has made a less than optimal buying decision.
Admirable tact, and extra points for the tap dance. 🙂
Re: Ah, but you make it sound like there's room for disagreement on value. There isn't. Practical buying is practical buying. If that's what you're doing, value is king.
I disagree. Are you saying that the (specific) needs & the (specific) situation of the buyer has no impact on the merits of purchasing decision? A home well-suited for a family with 2 kids might not be prudent for a family with 5 kids. Maybe one kid has a limiting disability.
My point is that each buying decision is unique, with unique factors, and that no one single model can be accurately applied to ALL buying decisions. Every family has a myriad of details that need to be addressed. The same goes with every house/home.
Failure to address these unique factors - for both the product & the buyer - will lead to a 'less-than-optimal' buying decision. A hard drive is not a house, but the same principles apply .. (on a smaller scale).
Re: << Have you ever actually owned a SCSI drive or controller? >>
Absolutely. But that's irrelevant.
I disagree on the grounds that knowledge based on experience is superior to that based (merely) on intellect & reasoning .. which is why, unlike cirriculum as an undergrad, where they want you to *learn* everything possible, as a graduate student, they want you to *do* everything possible ..
.. which is also why employers put more stock in what someone has *done* (resume), over what they've *learned*. You don't need to have a SCSI system to put in your two cents, but if you want your opinions to have any *credibility* .. and you want to be able to discuss the nuances of the interface .. you need some first hand experience. How much credibility do you ascribe to the tactical opinions of a general who's never been in a war?
Re: multitasking is a nebulous advantage that cannot be objectively demonstrated as better than current IDE systems which feature DMA busmastering.
Are you denying that IDE is a single-tasking interface? Busmastering has nothing to do with multitasking.
Re: << Value is a personal thing. >>
Nope. Value is objective and absolute.
I disagree again .. and it seems that so do both Merriam & Webster. I looked up the word VALUE at dictionary.com
1st definition is:
1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, CONSIDERED to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
I ask you .. WHO is doing the CONSIDERING in that definition? Some 'fundamental economic rule'? .. or a PERSON? There's nothing "objective & absolute" about people.
The 3rd def'n = Worth in usefulness or importance TO THE POSSESSOR; utility or merit: the value of an education.
Notice the words: TO THE POSSESSOR .. again, no mention of any 'fundamental economic rule' .. only references to judgments made by people .. which are anything but "objective & absolute".
There are more examples I could use, but my point is made.
So now it seems like you're not only determining what value is for everybody, but that you also want to define our vocabulary.
Have you read David Copperfield? If so, what did you think of Uriah Heep? 🙂
Instigator
Senior member
bump
Instigator
Senior member
oops bump
Instigator
Senior member
Can't we all get along? Can't we all be friends? Feel the love! 😉
Instigator
Senior member
By the way my vote is SCSI for boot drive (OS, Business Apps, etc) and fast IDE drive for massive storage (mp3,games,etc). That is the route I will be going on my next setup. I think it is THE BEST combination of value and performance. Remember the hard drive is the slowest component in your system. IMHO
Hmm... 275+ replies and still some people insist that their opinion of value is the defining answer.
Someone once said
<< The legions of the stupid are invincible and shall be with us for a long time, but the terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. - A.E. >>
And someone else
<< Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz? My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends... - J.J. >>
That's All, Folks!
Someone once said
<< The legions of the stupid are invincible and shall be with us for a long time, but the terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. - A.E. >>
And someone else
<< Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz? My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends... - J.J. >>
That's All, Folks!
Sir Fredrick
Guest
Hmm...did modus give up or is he compiling a huge reply?
Damn,
This is the first thread I've read on anandtech where it actually seemed like people were truly getting trashed on for what they chose in their PC. From the first few pages it seemed like people with SCSI setups somehow felt they were elite and people with less money were poor, really couldn't compete, or even understand what they had.
I use eide in my main system, but with 13 computers, 2 are older scsi setups. The cool thing about the scsi setups is my work was going to throw them away but I took them and sent them back to the vendor for completely new ones! I thought that was awesome, but I don't plan to buy any new SCSI setups as I never see the benefits of SCSI (which mainly show up in the work place).
The thing about this huge thread that I don't really understand too much is how multitasking on SCSI becomes such a huge thing on your home PC. Here is what I do and I would be curious what others do as far as multitasking is concerned. I play games in windowed mode with winamp, sometimes a movie, mirc, icq, aim, 3-5 web browser windows and email all open at once. This is about as multitasked as I can humanly get without splitting into 2 people and it works beautifully on my eide system.
Also, why is everyone harping on Modus for doing perf/price ratios? The reason I ask this is because last time I checked 90% of this forum is based on perf/price and people usually pride themselves in getting 'good deals' or 'best bang for buck'. Yet, when that perf/price ratio comes back to bite them in the ass they all plead they have infinite wealth and that price no longer is part of the equation? I call bullsh!t =)
I'd like to applaud Modus for what he added to the thread as it was by far the most interesting reading material as opposed to name calling and misquoting. I always enjoy informational reading over name calling even if it is weighted by the person's own background (in this case economics)...
Oh yea, and for the record. ALL EIDE: (2) 30 gig deskstars, plextor 12x/10x/40x, kenwood 72x. And no I'm not the best example of perf/price only because I'm sort of wasteful with my own money especially when I can't find good reviews for what I plan on buying.
I doubt anyone reads this... skace 😀
This is the first thread I've read on anandtech where it actually seemed like people were truly getting trashed on for what they chose in their PC. From the first few pages it seemed like people with SCSI setups somehow felt they were elite and people with less money were poor, really couldn't compete, or even understand what they had.
I use eide in my main system, but with 13 computers, 2 are older scsi setups. The cool thing about the scsi setups is my work was going to throw them away but I took them and sent them back to the vendor for completely new ones! I thought that was awesome, but I don't plan to buy any new SCSI setups as I never see the benefits of SCSI (which mainly show up in the work place).
The thing about this huge thread that I don't really understand too much is how multitasking on SCSI becomes such a huge thing on your home PC. Here is what I do and I would be curious what others do as far as multitasking is concerned. I play games in windowed mode with winamp, sometimes a movie, mirc, icq, aim, 3-5 web browser windows and email all open at once. This is about as multitasked as I can humanly get without splitting into 2 people and it works beautifully on my eide system.
Also, why is everyone harping on Modus for doing perf/price ratios? The reason I ask this is because last time I checked 90% of this forum is based on perf/price and people usually pride themselves in getting 'good deals' or 'best bang for buck'. Yet, when that perf/price ratio comes back to bite them in the ass they all plead they have infinite wealth and that price no longer is part of the equation? I call bullsh!t =)
I'd like to applaud Modus for what he added to the thread as it was by far the most interesting reading material as opposed to name calling and misquoting. I always enjoy informational reading over name calling even if it is weighted by the person's own background (in this case economics)...
Oh yea, and for the record. ALL EIDE: (2) 30 gig deskstars, plextor 12x/10x/40x, kenwood 72x. And no I'm not the best example of perf/price only because I'm sort of wasteful with my own money especially when I can't find good reviews for what I plan on buying.
I doubt anyone reads this... skace 😀
NFS4
No Lifer
<< Also, why is everyone harping on Modus for doing perf/price ratios? The reason I ask this is because last time I checked 90% of this forum is based on perf/price and people usually pride themselves in getting 'good deals' or 'best bang for buck'. Yet, when that perf/price ratio comes back to bite them in the ass they all plead they have infinite wealth and that price no longer is part of the equation? I call bullsh!t =) >>
😀
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
