What would you see more performance with?

J

jnick

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
2,888
With my system specs in my sig, which HDD would show the most noticable performance?

A 74GB raptor or a HDD with 16MB of Cache?

Would either of these improve load times/game play at all?

Thanks ;)
 
WD740GD > 16MB 7200RPM (7K500, WD2500KS, _____S0 Maxtors) > Everything else
 
DougLite said:
WD740GD > 16MB 7200RPM (7K500, WD2500KS, _____S0 Maxtors) > Everything else
Click to expand...

haha yeah. The WD740GD is not listed in your A64 setup :(

But what about the WD360GD?

WD2500KS > WD360GD haha
 
So I'd see the most performance all around with the Raptor . . . Then I guess it's time to get me a raptor :p
 
jnick said:
So I'd see the most performance all around with the Raptor . . . Then I guess it's time to get me a raptor :p
Click to expand...

u won't be disappointed. wish i can afford one though. i decided on my build to for go some speed for more capacity
 
HDBox2d1 said:
haha yeah. The WD740GD is not listed in your A64 setup :(

But what about the WD360GD?

WD2500KS > WD360GD haha
Click to expand...
I got my WD2500KS for $100 (bought here in FS/T ), could not pass it up. I prefer 7200RPM drives, as I am a capacity whore first and foremost :) Besides, I do have an attachment to my Fujitsu MAP3367NP, and would like for it to remain my flagship drive for the forseeable future.

Enough about me, as others have said, WD740GD still remains head and shoulders above all other comers in ATA. You will not be disappointed, as long as you pair it with a spacious 7200RPM drive to make up for its weak capacity.
 
One last question about the Raptor. What's it's deal regarding heat and noise? Is it loud, or will it get HOT to where I'll need an after market cooler?

Oh, and a general question, can you run a Master & Slave combo when both are sata? Or does one have to be IDE? Could I run a master as a raptor, and a sata 200+ gb HDD as slave?

Thanks ;).
 
Actually, according to WD's firgures, the Raptor uses less power than the WD2500KS :eek: However, on noise, I hope you are prepared for a deep rumble rather than the chirp or chatter you are used to. If this is your first Raptor and you've never had a SCSI drive, it's quite an adjustment. Idle noise, like virtually every other FDB motor drive out there, is virtually non existant.
 
Thanks for the info.

The only other question I need to be answered is about the master/slave deal.

Thanks again Doug.
 
On SATA, unless you want to wade into the port multiplier quagmire, it is one drive per port.
 
Err . . . That confused the hell out of me. Lol.

As my sig says, I have a neo2 platinum. If I remember correctly they have 4 SATA ports, or at LEAST two. I'm obviously going to need a slave for my raptor. I'm wondering if using 2 SATA ports can make the hard drvies read as MAster & Slave, or do I need the Slave to be an IDE drive. I DON'T mean 2 SATA drives in one port. Simply 2 SATA drives in 2 ports, one master and one slave.

Does that work? Or should I just use my WD 120GB as my slave (IDE Drive)? Right now my slave is an 80GB master is a 120, and I'm only using 17GB on my slave. So I don't know if it's worth buying a 200+gb drive or keeping the 120GB as my slave. In all honesty it all depends on how I would Slave the drive being my master is a SATA (never worked with SATA before).
 
There is no master/slave on SATA. One SATA port, one SATA drive. You can use your IDE/PATA and SATA drives at the same time on the same system.
 
I see. So I could hook up 2 HDD in 2 SATA ports, but there would be no such thing as "Master" and "Slave". It's just going to be 2 Sata drives, one which I'd make for OS and programs, and another for storage. Would that be the correct way to look at it?

If so, then from your experience, what do you think is better/more reliable.

1 SATA ("Master") then "Slave" a normal PATA

2 SATA as I described in the original paragraph?

Once again, thanks Doug.
 
I see. So I could hook up 2 HDD in 2 SATA ports, but there would be no such thing as "Master" and "Slave". It's just going to be 2 Sata drives, one which I'd make for OS and programs, and another for storage. Would that be the correct way to look at it?
Click to expand...

That is correct. Master/Slave relationships refer to drives on the same physical cable. Because there is only one drive per cable, there is no master, and no slave.

You do not require any IDE devices to get your SATA drives to work, nor do you have to have more than one SATA device plugged in. If you put an IDE drive and a SATA drive in your computer, the IDE drive would be master, NOT slave. (Because it would be the only device on the cable.) You'll not notice a speed difference going from IDE to SATA provided the spindle speeds on both drives are the same, so I would recommend keeping your 120GB and purchasing one of those Raptors for your OS drive.
 
Thanks for the clarification. However, I would want my SATA Raptor to be my boot, therefore wouldn't it have to be the "Master"?

Basically I want the raptor to become my C: drive an hold my OS and prgrams (games, etc). Can you explain to me how I'd go about setting this up leaving my 120GB IDE as a storage drive. Would setting the 120GB as master affect the way the drives boot?

Thanks again.

EDIT : The more I think about it, I think I understand it. I would install the SATA drive, and install XP on it, thus making it C. Then just hook up my 120 GB as Master after windows is installed. This would still make my raptor the boot drive, and my 120, though plugged into the MASTER would still be considered a storage drive. Does that sound right?

The same thing would apply if I decided to do 2 SATA drives, correct? Just install XP on my raptor with no other drive connected, then after install, connect the other SATA drive, and it would take place as the storage drive.

Is that the basice concept?

Am I also reading you correctly that I would see a difference in performance with a SATA drive vs IDE 7200RPM?

Thanks again guys. I appreciate it.
 
I dunno, i could have forgot about the original loading times. but with my new 36gb raptor i did not tell a difference in loading times in Battlefield Vietnam,

I went from a Hitachi 7200RPM,8MB cache, Ultra ATA drive. to a Western Digital 10,000RPM, 8MB cache, SATA.
 
jnick said:
Thanks for the clarification. However, I would want my SATA Raptor to be my boot, therefore wouldn't it have to be the "Master"?

Basically I want the raptor to become my C: drive an hold my OS and prgrams (games, etc). Can you explain to me how I'd go about setting this up leaving my 120GB IDE as a storage drive. Would setting the 120GB as master affect the way the drives boot?

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Check this page out. Has a bit of information on just what a Master/Slave relationship is.

Ignore all the Master/Slave things for now, though.

I would install the SATA drive, and install XP on it, thus making it C. Then just hook up my 120 GB [...] after windows is installed. This would still make my raptor the boot drive, and my 120 [...] would still be considered a storage drive. Does that sound right?
Click to expand...
Correct. (Removed the master comments, as they have no relevance)

The same thing would apply if I decided to do 2 SATA drives, correct? Just install XP on my raptor with no other drive connected, then after install, connect the other SATA drive, and it would take place as the storage drive.

Is that the basic concept?
Click to expand...
Yup. Having only one drive installed ensures that Windows detects it as the C: drive (cet. par.)

Am I also reading you correctly that I would see a difference in performance with a SATA drive vs IDE 7200RPM?
Click to expand...
This is a little iffy. There is probably a difference, but not a noticable one, between most 7200RPM IDE drives and most 7200RPM SATA drives. However, there is a significant difference between a 10,000RPM SATA drive (Such as the Raptor) and a 7200RPM IDE drive. StorageReview is a great site to look for info like this.
 
Thanks for the thurough walk through. I only have 2 last questions left.

I noticed in storage review there was talk about TCQ and No TCQ. I'm assuming this is just a setup option, right? Of course my mobo would have to support it . . .

Well in a worst case scenariot, my C: Drive is a WD12000JB (I'm pretty ceratin that the Model #). It's a 120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache IDE Drive. Going from that to a 74GB Raptor w/o TCQ - There's no doubt I'll notice a difference in performance?

Thanks again for all the help.
 
jnick said:
I noticed in storage review there was talk about TCQ and No TCQ. I'm assuming this is just a setup option, right? Of course my mobo would have to support it . . .
Click to expand...
Yup, it's just an option for the Raptor.

Well in a worst case scenario, my C: Drive is a WD12000JB (I'm pretty certain that the Model #). It's a 120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache IDE Drive. Going from that to a 74GB Raptor w/o TCQ - There's no doubt I'll notice a difference in performance?
Click to expand...
In all things hard disk intensive, you should notice a difference (examples being, working with huge images in Photoshop, loading games, etc.) It won't be a gigantic difference, but a few seconds shaved off a level load is really nice sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top