• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

SATA RPM/Cache ?

P

PusherRobot

n00b
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
38
As the title says, Which is going to be more efficent performance-wise when it comes to say music editing/video editing/gaming 16 mb cache or 10k ? Don't really have any drives in mind yet, I know the obvious answer is "Raptors" but, I'm thinking along the lines of having some space too, like maybe 160 min. any opinions would be helpful. tks
 
Depending on what you want to spend, you're not going to get 160gB+ at 10k unless you go SCSI and we all know that isn't cheap. A SATA with a 16mB buffer will do you quite well at a good price.
 
So then overall would you say 16mb is better then 10k ? Cause thats kinda what i'm leaning towards
 
WD740GD is still the fastest ATA drive money can buy, period. If the limited capacity concerns you, pick up a 7200RPM drive to store music, movies etc.

If you can't afford to pickup both, a WD2500KS, Hitachi T7K250, or _____S0 Maxtor drive will all delvier great application level performance and solid capacity without breaking the bank. 250GB versions of those drives are going for $110-120.
 
You can make it a hybrid.

Have 2 hard drives.
1 for the boot,game and apps drive. a 74gb raptor, or if you don't have the money for that, get the 36gb raptor. These will be the 10,000RPM drives.

The other could be your storage drive, a 250gb SATA II w/16MB cache.
I sorta wished i would have got the 74gb raptor.
 
Dont buy the 36 GIG Raptor.......its slower that the 74 and a big waste of money.
 
HDBox2d1 said:
But is the 36gb raptor faster than ANY other 7200RPM HDD?
Click to expand...
A 16MB Cache drive will yield similar performance, while having over 5 times the capacity, and costing the same. 36GB raptor = $103 on pricewatch. 200GB 16mb = $87 on pricewatch.
 
HDBox2d1 said:
But is the 36gb raptor faster than ANY other 7200RPM HDD?
Click to expand...
36GB Raptor is roughly equal to a 7K250. Most any 16MB drive, or a newer Hitachi unit, will probably deliver better desktop application performance than WD360GD. It will certainly smoke older 7200RPM drives though.
 
DougLite said:
WD740GD is still the fastest ATA drive money can buy, period.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I figured this...

Is my processor the best money can buy? no
Is my video card the best money can buy? no
Is my monitor the best money can buy? no
Is my ram the best money can buy? no

So why do i need the best hard drive money can buy? .. i do not, i need the little brother.
:p

But yeah, still wish i would have got the 74gb raptor.
 
I'd recommend 2+ WD2500KS in a RAID0 if you want to get some good speed at reasonable cost. Raptors are cool and all, but the dollar/gb ratio is terrible and if you're doing editing you'll probably need alot of space.
 
From newegg.com's specs

HITACHI Deskstar T7K250 250gb
SATA II 300MB/S
Average Latency: 4.17ms
Average Seek Time: 8.5ms
Cache: 8MB

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250gb
SATA II 300MB/S
Average Latency: 4.2ms
Average Seek Time: 8.9ms
Cache: 16MB

Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 250gb
SATA 1 150MB/S
Average Latency: 4.16ms
Average Seek Time: 8ms
Cache: 8MB

Maxtor MaXLine III 7L250S0 250gb
SATA 1 150MB/S
Average Latency: 4.17ms
Average Seek Time: 9ms
Cache: 16MB
_______________________________________

Western Digital WD360GD (10,000RPM 36gb raptor.)
SATA 1 150MB/S
Average Latency: 2.99ms
Average Seek Time: 5.2ms
Cache: 8MB

Isn't the 36gb raptor above specs better than all the others listed above? or am i missing something; like the substained speeds or the average write times / average read times.
 
WD360GD is seriously lacking in firmware level buffer performance, as it is tuned for multi-user server performance. Also, it lacks density, stretching seeks over a larger area of the disk. Also, it compromises signifcantly on seek performance when compared to its big brother, with 5.2ms seeks vs 4.5ms on WD740GD.
 
I see. Never knew about the firmware level buffer performance info.
The Multi-user server performance issues isn't fun for me. My computer is made for a single user. As always, should have spent the extra $90 and got the 74gb
Good deal D. Light :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top