If I have a motherboard that only support SATAI 150 Gb/s which of these two harddrives would be best ?1) Seagate Barracuda ST3500320AS 7200.11 500GB 7200rpm 32MB cache SATA2 2) Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10000rpm 16MB Cache SATA The Seagate has listed performence as good or better than the Raptor could it be faster than 10000 rpm drive?

The 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda is comparable to the WD Raptor. In fact it is faster in many synthetic benchmarks. Biggest difference I see.... 0.28 per gigabyte cost for the seagate and 1.44 per gigabyte cost for the WD Raptor.

>The 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda is comparable to the WD Raptor.> In fact it is faster in many synthetic benchmarks. Biggest>difference I see.... 0.28 per gigabyte cost for the seagate>and 1.44 per gigabyte cost for the WD Raptor.Yes that was also mine impression. And as I see it it doesn't matter that I only have SATAI since both drives has internal transfer rates around 100 Gb/s which is below SATAI 150 Gb/s. Or am I missing something?

For real apps benchmarks, the WD Raptor beats ALL other PC drives in EVERY category by 25-30%! Reason: 3 mSec average latency (due to 10,000 rpm) and 4.6 mSec average seek time.See: http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html...2=1087&chart=48

>For real apps benchmarks, the WD Raptor beats ALL other PC>drives in EVERY category by 25-30%! Reason: 3 mSec average>latency (due to 10,000 rpm) and 4.6 mSec average seek time.>>See: >http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html...2=1087&chart=48lol...That's one of how many benchmarks there?? The WD Raptor quite simply does not beat all other PC drives in every catagorey by 25-30%. Finish reading all the benches.

>For real apps benchmarks, the WD Raptor beats ALL other PC>drives in EVERY category by 25-30%! Reason: 3 mSec average>latency (due to 10,000 rpm) and 4.6 mSec average seek time.>>See: >http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html...2=1087&chart=48But the 7200.11 got 4.16 mS average accesstime. In addition to that it also got 32 Mb cashe compared to 16 Mb for the raptor.

You misread my post:I didn't say "in every category", I said "for real Apps benchmarks ... in every category".Now go back and check the Fileserver IO, Webserver IO, Database IO and Workstation IO benchmarks and tell me what you find.-jahman.

>You misread my post:>>I didn't say "in every category", I said "for real Apps>benchmarks ... in every category".>>Now go back and check the Fileserver IO, Webserver IO,>Database IO and Workstation IO benchmarks and tell me what you>find.>>-jahman.Sorry jahman my bad for the misinterpretation.--Bob

The difference between the two is negligible in normal use. For FS however, you should use the Raptor and here's why. While both drives are comparably fast, the seek time on the Raptor is more than twice as fast. This is important because FS uses hundreds, if not thousands, of small files to load textures, objects, and so on. The Raptor can find and load these files twice as fast. A single Raptor will even outperform a Raptor raid array. Raids are great for really big files but the extra work to find all the files fs needs takes longer as you're dealing with two heads, two alignments, two seeks and two loads.Hope this helpsJeff

" . . . And as I see it it doesn't matter that I only have SATAI since both drives has internal transfer rates around 100 Gb/s which is below SATAI 150 Gb/s. . . . " Correct. Good for you, Now go get that -11. Notice the megascenery file structure for FS9 v FSX. The scenery folks are All all going to bigger (and fewer) files for FS functions. It's still a fine drive, if you already own it. But for new buys, The day of the Raptor is over.

:-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol I bought both.Jeff

Can I see a link to that Seagate drive?

Here ya go Ryan.Regards,Jeffhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822148288

>" . . . And as I see it it doesn't matter that I only have>SATAI since both drives has internal transfer rates around 100>Gb/s which is below SATAI 150 Gb/s. . . . " >>Correct. Good for you, Now go get that -11. Notice the>megascenery file structure for FS9 v FSX. The scenery folks>are All all going to bigger (and fewer) files for FS>functions. It's still a fine drive, if you already own it. But>for new buys, The day of the Raptor is over.But it's FS9 for my part. Is there chance the Megascenery titles could be useful with a 7200.11? They were not with current IDE drives or previous standard SATA drives.There is another thing that makes me somewhat weary. I have heard rumour that my mb Asus A8V deluxe AFP don't like SATAII drives. But the Asus support has told me there are no known issues of incompatibility with SATAII drives and my mb.

Man....after reading the customer reviews for this Barracuda at NewEgg it would sure appear that there is either a design or quality issue with these particular drives.