LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHi everyone.
I was wondering, which is faster:
a) 2 IDE100 ,8 mb cache, 7200 rpm, hard drives in Raid0 (via a PCI IDE Raid card), or
b) 1 single SATA 150, 7200 rpm, 8 mb cache drive on its own?
Thanks!!
Hi everyone.
I was wondering, which is faster:
a) 2 IDE100 ,8 mb cache, 7200 rpm, hard drives in Raid0 (via a PCI IDE Raid card), or
b) 1 single SATA 150, 7200 rpm, 8 mb cache drive on its own?
Thanks!!
RAID will be faster.
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
Realistically, you probably wouldn't notice much difference. RAID only really makes the benchmark progs give faster benchmarks, and about a 10% speed increase in everyday tasks
Oh, and how old are the IDE drives, you talking UDMA or what??Even the raptors aren't as great as they used to be, compared to other drives
Nox
RAID 0 make a difference IMO...my RAID drives are very fast and I notice the difference in load times when I play games
Don't forget that normal drives aren't limited by the speed of ATA133, so having SATA (which is 150MB/s) doesn't increase the speed of the drive (unless you have NCQ on both the drive and the motherboard). I don't think drives are even limited by ATA100 yet, but SATA can bring other benefits.
Personally, I would go with a SATA drive unless you were doing some HDD intensive work since the risk of data loss and relatively small performance gain aren't worth it to me.
"Well, there was your Uncle Tiberius who died wrapped in cabbage leaves but we assumed that was a freak accident."
Gracias muchachos,
I guess Raid0 is indeed faster, but not really worth the risk and the hassle. Thanks for the info!
1 single sata will use only a thin cable whereas even with round ide cables you will have a bit more mess. cleaner case = better cooling.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Ever heard the word Placebo?Originally Posted by kempez815
RAID 0 make a difference IMO...my RAID drives are very fast and I notice the difference in load times when I play games
I would be extremely surprised if you took one of those drives out of the RAID, shoved the same games on it, measured game load times and it made any difference. There are so few games it could make a difference to(baulders gate being the only one that comes to mind) that its highly unlikely there is any real difference. In fact, some RAID0 tests I've noticed actually increased loading times marginally because of the extra stuff that was going on.
RAID 0 isn't so much faster, its more extra bandwidth then speed per se. Games don't need high bandwidth, they need high speed, which is why Raptors are what you want for games, no RAID 0, which is effectively useless.
RAID0 is faster.
you will notice a difference
whether its worth the effort or not........up to you to decide.
Raid0 is faster but I have to agree with specofdust above you wont really notice any real world difference (unless you explicitly look for it) and is indeed more hassle.
What we share with everyone is glum, and dark...
RAID-0 will be noticeably faster for certain tasks such as loading up Windows XP and sequential transfer benchmarks, and other applications which relies heavily on sequential read/write (video editing etc). For games, it is a lot more negligeable (well, not tried with the latest).
Personally, I am not bothered with it, I prefer to use extra drives for backup purpose. Recovering from a dead drive is a far more annoying process than waiting an extra 2 seconds of loading a game IMO (or extra 5 sec for booting Windows).
Oh yea, I would go SATA for the cables. I can't stand IDE cables now, and frankly I would like optical drives to go SATA too (of course, it would also mean that mobo will all need to have more SATA connectors).
Only makes a difference for buffered transfers. The fastest SCSI disks can only just reach 100mb/s flat out, anything IDE/SATA isn't even close.
RAID -2 hard drive controller sets, 2 sets of cache. SATA150 doesnt have that much performance over high end IDE drives, but when 250 is brought in as standard on hard drive controller boards, then yes there would be a significant performance boost.
The only other advantage I can think of is smaller cables heh
Actually, I doubt that any drive, SCSI or otherwise is capable of 100MB yet. They are -getting- there, but not et.
Mind ya, one of the problem with IDE is that the bandwidth is shared with two drives. ATA100 won't limit one drive, but will limit two top of the end 7.2k IDE drive... If you are transfering from one drive to another anyway.
(Ideally, you wouldn't have them in the same channel, but sometime you just need to for cabling reason, or other).
Gigabyte iRam is fast
I'm wondering how fast the next gen 22k rpm SCSI drives will be too.
Nox
*Shrug*. I must've missed the news.. but I am not into first gen drives. They tend to have various issues, be it noise, heat etc. And performance tend to be sub-optimal to what they -can- do. Oh, and they cost a lot too. Don't get me wrong, I was drooling all over the 15k Cheetah when it was announced/released. But common sense prevailed, and I even left the SCSI game. The one thing I am well impressed by SCSI drive is that they last a good while. The PC I bought in 1998 is still working (passed it onto my flatmate), and that came with a 2nd gen 10k Cheetah.
What I am more interested in, with this news, is if more manufacturers other than WD will finally release 10k RPM SATA drives.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
SCAN.care@HEXUS
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
