• 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.

Wich hard drive?

raptor performs better, but it's not groundbreaking. id rather get a quality 2x 80-120gig sata 7200rpm raid 0 instead of 76gb raptor.
 
RAID 0 gives you twice the chance to lose data. If you get raptor( i have 2) you will forget that there is loading. Get a raptor and then a storage drive. A raptor is like one of the fastest consumor hard drive.
 


The system I am building will have a raptor drive as the primary and a large 7200rpm 250-300 GB Maxtor DiamondMax10 with 16mb of cache.

- Mike
 
Originally posted by: mwmorph
raptor performs better, but it's not groundbreaking. id rather get a quality 2x 80-120gig sata 7200rpm raid 0 instead of 76gb raptor.
Click to expand...

That won't be as fast as a single Raptor...
 
Originally posted by: Amaroque
Originally posted by: mwmorph
raptor performs better, but it's not groundbreaking. id rather get a quality 2x 80-120gig sata 7200rpm raid 0 instead of 76gb raptor.
Click to expand...

That won't be as fast as a single Raptor...
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Amaroque. A single Raptor is 'really' fast. You get what you pay for with that drive.
 
Why does everyone think SATA II and a hard drive are anything alike? The are mutually exclusive! Its like asking if my CPU is faster than my fsb.
 
Dam, a raptor is the fastest, get it. When booting up XP, the loading bar doesnt complete one full lad bar. Just get a big storage.
 
If you're looking just for a single drive solution: the Raptor.

If you're looking for blazing speed: forget SATA, go ultra wide SCSI (and find a controller card that will do the RAID setup tailored to your I/O and data speed requirements -- RAID 5 is not a good choice for desktops, it's only good at reads and that doesn't do well when you're making a MPEG video or ripping MP3s).

True RAID is the best solution (real fault tolerance and speed), but true RAID is still expensive. 🙁
 
Get a 15,000 rpm SCSI hard drive.


P.S. I plan on getting a WD Raptor 74 gig and the fastest 15,000 rpm SCSI hard drive currently. I want to compare the two. I have a feeling I will like the fastest 15,000 rpm SCSI hard drive currently.
 
Originally posted by: aeternitas
Why does everyone think SATA II and a hard drive are anything alike? The are mutually exclusive! Its like asking if my CPU is faster than my fsb.
Click to expand...

Well, MY "FSB" is 1040MHz (260x4). My CPU is 2600MHz. So yes, my CPU is faster (in MHz) then my FSB.

Bad analogy.
 
You look anywhere and they'll all say the same thing. The hard drive interface has little to do with the overall performance of the hard drive.

storagereview.com is a good site for benchmarks and analyses.
 
Originally posted by: Regs
You look anywhere and they'll all say the same thing. The hard drive interface has little to do with the overall performance of the hard drive.

storagereview.com is a good site for benchmarks and analyses.
Click to expand...

If you're replying to me. I'm aware of that... I was just pointing out the poor analogy that will most likely confuse people even more.
 
Originally posted by: Amaroque
Originally posted by: aeternitas
Why does everyone think SATA II and a hard drive are anything alike? The are mutually exclusive! Its like asking if my CPU is faster than my fsb.
Click to expand...

Well, MY "FSB" is 1040MHz (260x4). My CPU is 2600MHz. So yes, my CPU is faster (in MHz) then my FSB.

Bad analogy.
Click to expand...


No, it was a fine analogy that went clear over your head. My hard drive is 50MBps, my SATA link is 150MBps, so sata must be faster. Think a little harder.
 
Originally posted by: aeternitas
Originally posted by: Amaroque
Originally posted by: aeternitas
Why does everyone think SATA II and a hard drive are anything alike? The are mutually exclusive! Its like asking if my CPU is faster than my fsb.
Click to expand...

Well, MY "FSB" is 1040MHz (260x4). My CPU is 2600MHz. So yes, my CPU is faster (in MHz) then my FSB.

Bad analogy.
Click to expand...


No, it was a fine analogy that went clear over your head. My hard drive is 50MBps, my SATA link is 150MBps, so sata must be faster. Think a little harder.
Click to expand...

Captain obvious... That still has nothing to do with your analogy. :roll:

I saturate the bus with 2x 10,000 RPM Raptors, 4x 7200 RPM Caviars, and 2x Plextor 712's. SATAll does matter.

Just because you use one HDD, doesn't mean everyone else does.
 
Ultra wide SCSI offers 350 throughput, which is 2x the bandwidth of any SATA drive (even in reality it may get 200, but that's still much faster). Also those drives are built like tanks (they're designed for server markets that require 99.9% uptime for years).

Best thing about SCSI is it's ability to daisy chain much more than IDE or SATA solutions. No storage problems in that setup. Have 5 terabytes of storage -- no problem!

Go with a Raptor is you're on a budget. Go with SCSI if you need ultimate HDD speed, storage and fault tolerance. Even cheaper 10k drives offer those advantages (and they're at the price range of Raptors).
 
Originally posted by: Amaroque

Captain obvious... That still has nothing to do with your analogy. :roll:

I saturate the bus with 2x 10,000 RPM Raptors, 4x 7200 RPM Caviars, and 2x Plextor 712's. SATAll does matter.

Just because you use one HDD, doesn't mean everyone else does.
Click to expand...


I never said it didnt matter. Youre loseing your mind, kid. Dont get all crazy simply becuase you couldent understand something.

 
Originally posted by: Terumo
Ultra wide SCSI offers 350 throughput, which is 2x the bandwidth of any SATA drive (even in reality it may get 200, but that's still much faster). Also those drives are built like tanks (they're designed for server markets that require 99.9% uptime for years).

Best thing about SCSI is it's ability to daisy chain much more than IDE or SATA solutions. No storage problems in that setup. Have 5 terabytes of storage -- no problem!

Go with a Raptor is you're on a budget. Go with SCSI if you need ultimate HDD speed, storage and fault tolerance. Even cheaper 10k drives offer those advantages (and they're at the price range of Raptors).
Click to expand...


SATA II is 300. I believe ultra wide is 360. SCSI is best left to servers really.
 
Originally posted by: aeternitas
Originally posted by: Amaroque

Captain obvious... That still has nothing to do with your analogy. :roll:

I saturate the bus with 2x 10,000 RPM Raptors, 4x 7200 RPM Caviars, and 2x Plextor 712's. SATAll does matter.

Just because you use one HDD, doesn't mean everyone else does.
Click to expand...


I never said it didnt matter. Youre loseing your mind, kid. Dont get all crazy simply becuase you couldent understand something.
Click to expand...

Edit: I should have guessed... Just a troll. :disgust:

Anyway, learn how to spell, troll boy. "loseing" is spelt "loosing" ... "couldent" is spelt "couldn't" 😉
 
Originally posted by: Terumo
Ultra wide SCSI offers 350 throughput, which is 2x the bandwidth of any SATA drive (even in reality it may get 200, but that's still much faster). Also those drives are built like tanks (they're designed for server markets that require 99.9% uptime for years).

Best thing about SCSI is it's ability to daisy chain much more than IDE or SATA solutions. No storage problems in that setup. Have 5 terabytes of storage -- no problem!

Go with a Raptor is you're on a budget. Go with SCSI if you need ultimate HDD speed, storage and fault tolerance. Even cheaper 10k drives offer those advantages (and they're at the price range of Raptors).
Click to expand...

Actually, when I start replacing drives, I've decided to go with all SCSI myself. Much more flexible, and multitasks better then any ATA interface.
 
Originally posted by: aeternitas

SATA II is 300. I believe ultra wide is 360. SCSI is best left to servers really.
Click to expand...

Still less (and I quoted Fujitsu thoroughput, the drives I have in my server).

Actually SCSI is used on rigs that do A/V work. If a consumer does a lot of A/V work it'll benefit them. SATAII has a limit on how many drives to hook up natively. It'll take a lot of HDDs to reach the limit for SCSI (point needed when ripping a lot of videos and music files).

It just comes down to cost. Personally I'd invest in a controller card over a water cooler, since the bottleneck with HDD thoroughput is alleived, and it's one part of the system that can't be OCed itself. Build up speed system wide, compared to just the CPU and videocard.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top