1TB VS 500GB VS 250 ETC

[blazin]

I am currently running a ide "st3 ...." ata about 150gb hard drive. Now I no sata is considerably faster than ide (?) ...

But right now I have been seeing alot of deals on 1tb and 500gb hard drives, both sata.

My question is what is better 2 500gb harddrives or 1 tb? What are the pros and cons?

I play alot of video games so if it affects my gaming I would like to know. If 2 500gb hdd is the choice should I consider raiding?

What should I do with the ata?

[nitrobass24]

my first question would be what is more important performance of games or hard drive space.
then if you had a 1tb drive would it get used? i mean most people dont have the need to store a 1tb of data.
If you want game performance get a performance drive like a 10000rpm raptor or if your real serious go SAS and get 15000rpm drive
If you look at my sig I have 2 400gb drives and 2 74gb raptors they are used for completely different purposes.

[blazin]

I would like a balance more than anything but I guess video game performance but how much would a 7.2 vs 10k difference would there be? I mean will I notice anything in game? Hopefully I notice a huge change since I'm going from ide.

I have an external harddrive 500gigs and that is near full as is my 150g(ata) =\ So, yea, I think I need harddrive space

[nitrobass24]

Well then if you need the space get a 1tb drive and migrate your 150gb data to it, and get rid of it. Its slow and is a ticking timebomb before it dies. youll notice a performance increase due to the SATA interface and better drive with large cache, i suggest this over 2x500gb because it will use less power create less heat and when you add drives you add just one more thing to go wrong. take a look at this drive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152102) I really like these followed by the seagates. WD and hitachi are good but these are better, WD is slower and has less cache, and the hitachi uses the original 5 platter design, just outdated.

[blazin]

oh shit I didn't know there was other things to take into consideration besides the speed on the gb size. Like platters and cache, ... never new what cache was for ... just that more is better, right? So get rid of the ide ... thats exactly what I was thinking. So, 1tb vs 2x500 raided is faster? I never done raiding, but I'm always interested in doing new things. I just built my new rig and it was my first time building one.


**** Oh by the way I looked at the harddrive you recommended and I thought WD was the top of the line namebrand, but if I do get the 1tb drive I'm going with the one you recommended 8mb cache to the 32mb cache you recommended should be 10x better. Thanks.

[nitrobass24]

no 2x500gb in raid0 is faster but dont take this wrong way I get the feeling that your new to all this disk storage technology stuff and a raid will offer little performance increase and may cause you headaches that you dont yet have the experience to deal with.
Sometimes simplicity is the best solution

You want a drive with most amount of cache possible.

WD is a top of the name brand and i love most of their products, but at the 1tb level the samsung and seagates are faster. Just so you know retail versions of Seagates come with a 5 year warranty.

[blazin]

sweet, guess I will be going with simplicity this time around ... even though I was ready for some headaches =)

Thanks tho, I will be taking all your advice thanks again.

[Danny Bui]

You want a drive with most amount of cache possible.


What for? The WD WD6400AAKS outperforms many drives, including those with 32MB cache, out there yet it only has a 16MB cache.

[blazin]

So then what is cache for? It doesn't necessarily mean better performance?

[nitrobass24]

Well Danny your not exactly comparing apples to apples are you? were talking about 1tb hdds
Also I don't know where your getting your stats because the both have the same avg. seek time, and the Seagate seems to have lower latency.
Also heres just a general fact about computers, the more memory/cache you have whether its your desktop/laptop/server/printer/router/switch it will work better with more.

You want a drive with most amount of cache possible.

That means if your choosing btwn a xxxGB drive of one with 8,16,32mb of cache the one with the most cache will perform better.

Instead of directing your disagreement at me, why dont you instead offfer up your advice to help Blazin with his situation.

[S-B]

Cache is a factor, as are: the number of platters, platter sizes, recording technology, rotational speed, etc. These are all things that add up when you're looking at HDDs.

750GB 32MB - Cheapest per GB; fast, but not the fastest.
WD SE16 640GB - 2nd cheapest per GB, but not nearly as cheap as 750; lowest latency of any sub-10K RPM SATA drive; least power draw; 2nd fastest (on average).
Samsung F1 1TB - Fastest (on average); 2nd least power draw; decent price, but not as good as the other two.

My suggestion, compromise: the 750GB 32MB cache HDDs are floating around the $100 price range now. It'll be fast enough for most people. Hell, if you survived with a 150GB drive for this long, the 750GB drive will be more than enough for you.

[blazin]

hahahaha, I haven't always used ide ... I built my own pc recently (signature) and I cheaped out when it came to the HDD b/c I didn't think it affected gaming, but I've been told otherwise (not sure how tho). So, I took my sister's old HDD and installed vista 64.

Thanks for the comparisons gb to $ to performance, that is really helpful!!! I'm going on newegg and pricegrabber to compare specs to see what would be the best combo. Just out of curiosity though, if I do not get the 1tb now since it might be better to get a 750 or 640 ... does it have to be identical harddrives to be raid-able? thanks guys so much for the help!

[blazin]

Quote: Samsung F1 1TB - Fastest (on average); 2nd least power draw; decent price, but not as good as the other two.

I was doing some comparisons when I read this again. What did you mean it is not as good as the other two?? If its the fastest isn't it the best of the three even though you are going to be paying more?

[S-B]

Quote: Samsung F1 1TB - Fastest (on average); 2nd least power draw; decent price, but not as good as the other two.

I was doing some comparisons when I read this again. What did you mean it is not as good as the other two?? If its the fastest isn't it the best of the three even though you are going to be paying more?
I separated pros/cons with a semicolon. That last one is referring to the price. I guess I should have said "decent price, but not as cheap /GB as the other two". I'd also be hesitant to get an F1 1TB, they seem to have a high error rate for some reason. And a heads up: the F1 750GB, despite the name, is a completely different product (3x250GB platters, not 3x337GB).


does it have to be identical harddrives to be raid-able? thanks guys so much for the help!
They don't have to be identical, but they SHOULD be of the same size. With RAID, the size is limited by the smallest and the speed is limited by the slowest drive in the array. Thus, adding a larger drive would be a waste.

So, if you put a SE16 750GB drive along with a Samsung F1 1TB and 7200.11 750GB, your array will have 2250GB to work with -- not 2500GB. The slow speed of the SE16 750GB (being a 188GB platter drive), will take its toll on the overall performance of your array.

[blazin]

More platters = better? Because you can access the information from smaller sections?

If you add 1tb + 750 + 750 to a raid it gets limited because of the platter size or the speed of the slowest one?

So in essence then shouldn't all hdds be identical down to speed and platters so that you get the full 2500GB when raiding?

[Forceman]

Fewer platters is better - higher data density as well as lower power requirements (to spin the platters).

If you are moving from an IDE drive, I would recommend just grabbing one of the WD6400AAKS drives - 640GB is going to be plenty for you, and they have a great combination of speed and quiet. Unless you want to get really hardcore, there is no real reason to move to a RAID setup from where you are (although that's my opinion, others may disagree). If you really feel the need for 1TB, just get a 1TB drive, probably the F1. Either way it's going to be a big step-up from where you are now.