Incidentally, according to Anand's tests, both a 120JB and a Raptor score about the same in actual system-level testing, and both are shown scoring higher than a Maxtor Atlas 10k IV. However, having compared the following two setups:
- A7N8X-Deluxe
- 2 x 256Mb Corsair XMS3200C2 @ sync
- AthlonXP 2200+
- WD 800JB
versus
- A7N266-VM (classic nForce with single memory controller)
- 512Mb Crucial PC2100 @ SPD
- AthlonXP 1700+
- Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP on Adaptec 19160 U160 controller
Looking at the specs, obviously the nForce2 system should be pwning the old outdated nForce 220D system. I mean, it's got dual-channel DDR, a faster chipset, a faster CPU, and what the Winstones think is a faster hard drive. Well guess what...
The difference in responsiveness, in real-life office use, was quite distinct and in favor of the "slow" SCSI-equipped system. Launching a virus scan and then attempting to browse the hard drive made it even more obvious as to which system was wearing the pants in the family. The Atlas 10k IV tested by Anand and Tom has similar performance to my X15-36LP, according to SR's benchmarks at least, so I'd expect similar results with an Atlas 10k IV.
So draw your own conclusions from that. My conclusion is that Winstone tests that purport to show a WD JB being faster than a modern SCSI drive may be correct insofar as they go, but *I* don't run those types of apps at the speed of the Winstone scripts, and my subjective experience is pointing to SCSI as the preferable solution. The fact that my work PC is a
de facto fileserver in its own right makes the choice even more clear-cut for my particular situation. I'm not saying everyone should get a 15000rpm SCSI drive + controller, but then again, I'm not saying everyone should get a Raptor either. I think a lot of peoples' needs are going to be met better by a quiet fluid-bearing high-capacity ATA/IDE drive. So everyone have fun with the drives of your choice, I know I am!
Facebook
Twitter