• 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.

Should i change the HD!

S

sir_tiger

n00b
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
17
Hi there!

I have 2 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (Perpendicular Recording) ST3320620A 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache IDE Ultra ATA100 Hard Drives

and i thought to upgrade To:

Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive

and Seagate Barracuda ES ST3750640NS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive

Will i have a better performance from Ultra Ata to Serial ata?

Thnx in advance
 
If you are not having any problems with your current drives, don't bother getting new ones. But if you still want to get a new hard drive, I'd recommend the Seagate 750GB drive, since the better performance from the Raptor (due to the faster RPM speed) is no longer worth its price premium. (The newer Seagate drives have also beaten the Raptor in some benchmarks.)

There are advantages to using Serial ATA over IDE -- small, thinner cables; independent drives (or, no Master/Slave connections); higher potential data bandwidth (though most drives, outside of those in a RAID configuration, still don't fully use the available bandwidth) -- but nothing, in my opinion, that justifies you having to make the switch now.
 
I agree with tiraides. This is my usual copy and paste for HDD info, but none of the drives listed are IDE...

Avg Transfer Rate, Access Time: HDD info, Price I paid (except for raptor - twas a gift)
**note, these figures come from HDTune, a synthetic benchmark for HDDs.

112MB/s, 13.2ms: RAID0 'cuda's, 600GB total, $120 (ICH9R on P35-DS3R)
78MB/s, 08.2ms: WD Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB, $160
76MB/s, 13.7ms: WD Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS 750GB, $150
72MB/s, 15.4ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250410AS 250GB, $65
68MB/s, 13.3ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB, $60
65MB/s, 13.7ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB, $80
65MB/s, 13.2ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3300620AS 300GB, $60
63MB/s, 13.4ms: WD Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS 500GB, $100
62MB/s, 15.3ms: Samsung HD501LJ 500GB, $105
52MB/s, 14.0ms: WD Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB, $70

As you can see, the 'cuda is twice the size and half the cost, for nearly the same avg transfer rate as the Raptor. Stick them in RAID0, and you've got an even more cost effective solution. Though, the seek time of the Raptor can't be beat. If you have cash to burn, do so on a Raptor if you really want it. Otherwise, there are better cost effective solutions depending on your needs these days.

==========================

So, I'm unsure if a move from PATA to SATA will yield much more performance. From what I can see, the current speeds of these drives don't saturate either technology's limits unless they're ran in a RAID config. So, in short... I doubt you will have better performance from PATA to SATA.
 
Here's some information on the Seagate Barracuda ES ST3750640NS courtesy of Storage Review:

Avg. Random Access Time (Read): 12.3 ms
Avg. Random Access Time (Write): 13.5 ms
Maximum Transfer Rate: 78.5 MB/s
Minimum Transfer Rate: 44.3 MB/s

Price (Store):
$226 - Mwave
$227 - ZipZoomFly
$240 - NewEgg

The only true advantage the Raptor has over the Seagate drive is the faster access and seek times (due to the Raptor's higher 10K RPM speeds). Sure, you could purchase a Raptor for under $200, but you'd be missing out on over half a terabyte of storage space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top