Which harddrive is fastest on my system

[ryanbatc 12,815]

Alrighty thanks for the explanationI'd still go with the 32mb cache seagate, because it is much cheaper per/GB

[jfri 42]

>>But I had FS9 in mind (+ addons)>>>Doesn

[Guest Nick_N]

>And for me I won't be able to utilise SATAII on the Seagate since my mb only supports SATAI.The drive has backwards compatibility but that does mean you will be buying a drive which will never run its spec.. of course later if you change motherboards that will change and you will have the full ability of that 32m cache driveYou are paying for higher functions and a communication speed your motherboard will not support, therefore, if you do not exceed 50GB your better off on the 74GB Raptor for performance.At the same time the cost difference between the 150 and the 74GB models is only 20 buckshttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136012http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136033... go for the 150GB for 20 bucks more and get --all-- the advantages of the Raptor and the larger platter which will not be hindered by the SATA protocol on your board and the drive can go with you as you migrate to a different system in the future too.Hope that helped

[jfri 42]

>>And for me I won't be able to utilise SATAII on the Seagate>since my mb only supports SATAI.>>The drive has backwards compatibility but that does mean you>will be buying a drive which will never run its spec.. of>course later if you change motherboards that will change and>you will have the full ability of that 32m cache drive>>You are paying for higher functions and a communication speed>your motherboard will not support, therefore, if you do not>exceed 50GB your better off on the 74GB Raptor for>performance.>On the other hand I have read that the higher 300 Gb/s transfer rate is really never used in practice use.>At the same time the cost difference between the 150 and the>74GB models is only 20 bucks>>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136012>>>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136033>>... go for the 150GB for 20 bucks more and get --all-- the>advantages of the Raptor and the larger platter which will not>be hindered by the SATA protocol on your board and the drive>can go with you as you migrate to a different system in the>future too.>Not where I live. Here the 150 Gb raptor is about 50% higher priced than the 74 Gb raptor. And newegg is no option for me since I live outside USA where newegg won't ship.

[Guest Nick_N]

>On the other hand I have read that the higher 300 Gb/s transfer rate is really never used in practice use.The only hard drive which will truly come close to saturating the 3Gb/s communication rate is a SSD driveThe industry has a great way of making things look better than they are.. going from 1.5Gbs to 300Gbs and assuming other components remain the same the difference in true drive speed does not double. In application the difference is not huge.Rotation speed, platter size and lower access always wins over the industry marketing labelYou have all the facts now. If the 150 Raptor is too expensive and you are unsure of how much drive you may need over time then the 32m cache drive is the better choice. Not because it will be faster or cheaper but because it will provide the space and have a significant amount of free space left over and you wont have to worry about it filling up too far.

[Guest D17S]

"SATA" describes the buss on which the harddrive transfers data. To draw an analogy, it is the racetrack on which the racecars drive. The harddrive is the racecar. The SATA buss is the race track. If (for instance) an car's maximum speed is 110mph, increasing the racetrack's speed capability to from 150 to 375 mph will not help that car go faster . . . but here we are. The Seagate/Asus/Best Buy marketing departments want you to believe it will!Modern 7200RPM HDs can transfer at ~ 110Mbs. The new raptors are running ~ 120MB/s. The SATA I "racetrack" (buss) is rated for "cars" (HDs) with speeds of up to 150Mb/s and SATA II is rated to 375MB/s. SATA I is plenty of buss capacity for any single SATA harddrive today (non-SSD?). Actually ATA 133 is still Plenty of capacity! Using a SATA II buss will not provide a "Not huge" increase in performance. It will provide no performance increase At All. To consider other wise suggests a very basic misunderstanding of this technology. Access times are important too. The 7200 drives can access a file in an average of ~ 8-10ms. If a user defrags to the outer edge with a modern defragged, this can be improved. The Raptor accesses at ~ 5ms. Access time is really the Raptor's Only claim to fame. The question is then, "will better access times trump relatively comparable transfer rates?" If so, it won't be much. File size is getting larger. This means that there are fewer large files to access, rather than more numerous smaller files. This tends to offset the Raptors performance advantage. We're hearing the need to use 256 strips on raids. That means a HD system must be able to efficiently accommodate larger file sizes. FS file size are getting larger and there are fewer of them. This trend will continue to offset the Raptor's advantage in FS(XYZ). There can be little question the Raptors will provide a small performance advantage under some circumstances (like initial program loading). However in-game, it would take scientific instrumentation to discern any performance difference . . . if it existed at all. "Speed costs. How fast do you want to go?" As these things generally do, once again this Raptor v 7200 HD decision boils down to a Dollars vs Sense compromise.

[jfri 42]

>Modern 7200RPM HDs can transfer at ~ 110Mbs. The new raptors>are running ~ 120MB/s. The SATA I "racetrack" (buss) is rated>for "cars" (HDs) with speeds of up to 150Mb/s and SATA II is>rated to 375MB/s. SATA I is plenty of buss capacity for any>single SATA harddrive today (non-SSD?). Actually ATA 133 is>still Plenty of capacity! >>Using a SATA II buss will not provide a "Not huge" increase in>performance. It will provide no performance increase At All.>To consider other wise suggests a very basic misunderstanding>of this technology. >>Access times are important too. The 7200 drives can access a>file in an average of ~ 8-10ms. If a user defrags to the outerThe Seagate 7200.11 has stated averahe accesstime of 4.16 mS. And according to you it doesn't matter that I have SATAI instead of SATAII since the drive performence won't be affected.Question will I notice any significant speed improvement by going from my current 60 Gb + 250 Gb 7200 rpm IDE drives to the 7200.11 SATA drive?

[Guest Nick_N]

>To consider other wise suggests a very basic misunderstanding of this technology. I was not addressing you and that was a slick way of trying to suggest something ... nice try If I could I would reach through the internet and smack you for being a naughty little boy he11-bent desperate to try and discredit me.Has not worked yet and you just keep burring yourself every time you type and try another shotYou better go back to Wiki or where ever you get your information because the speed across the buffer on those drives is most certainly increased and if the application takes advantage of write or read cache ops it will in fact allow better performance on a single drive, but not by much. AKA 'not huge'The 3GB/s standard is designed for multi-drive muti I/O support such as RAID systems, otherwise the 3GB/s is useless. Home users who run single drives will see no difference unless the app design in use will take advantage of the write/read buffer.I have been trying to close out topics which I saw needed attention however the forum is yours nowAs I said before, god help themYou may bullchit now without fear of anyone correcting you.=======================================================apologies jfri.. was not my intent to deal with that in your thread however given the fact that someone here saw fit to attempt to use your thread for something that had nothing to do with assisting you, I felt I needed to address it.Good day and good luck to you

[Guest Nick_N]

Hey SamNext time at least have the decency to Google before you try to bullchit your way into a sly suggestion================================================A SATA 3Gb/s interface on the disc drive can increase system performance when the application takes advantage of the drive

[Guest D17S]

>> will I notice any significant speed improvement by going from my current 60 Gb + 250 Gb 7200 rpm IDE drives to the 7200.11 SATA drive?Likely, yes. It all depends on the performance of the 60 and the 250. Their IDE buss interface is not a factor, but it suggests their era. IDE (PATA) topped out at ~ 60Mb/s transfer rates. So, if your IDE drives are of this vintage, snag a Seagate -11 toot sweet. It'll rock your world! Remember that SATA I will provide transfer capaciety up to 150 Mb/s. The -11s run at ~ 110Mb/s. SATA I is plenty of "racetrack" capacity for your HD racecar . . . even for the speediest Raptormobile. These 7200 RPM drives have really come a long way. Did you notice that WD never did go with final 133Mb/s IDE (PATA) buss speed. They stayed with PATA 100 (Mb/s) all the way til the end. There were simply no drives at the time that could use this buss's capacity, so WD never implemented it. However Maxtor did went with the PATA 133 standard, advertising a faster drive. This was a simply and entirely and Blatantly false assertion. This really irked me. These guys were just taking advantage of a lay customer's tendency to believe any higher number will provide better performance than any lower number. We see that kind of disingenuous salesmanship all the time. For instance take 400mhz FSBs, PCIe-v2 and SATA II. These are all examples of buss technology providing capacities for memory interfaces, Vcards and HDs that are completely beyond those device's ability to use. Buyer beware. And larger cache = burst speed advantage = better performance? That's just more marketing nonsense. Let's look at it. At SATA II's maximum transfer rate of 375MB/s (1.5Gb/s), how long will it take to discharge a 32MB cache? About 100ms, but that's one magic 1/10th of a second! However (it's argued) that transfer is continuous. How? That cache has to be reloaded someway. If the drive can only transfer at ~ 100MB/s, it cannot maintain a cache source that is transferring at 375MB/s. After that 1st 1/10 of a second, the cache is depleted. From that point, cache can only provide data at the rate that it can receive data from the HD (or ~ 100MB/s). Cache is just a buffer for "emergencies." Sorry, but I always have to relate back to airplanes. It's like an accumulator in a hydraulic system. If the pressure drops momentarily, the accumulator will maintain system pressure in that momentary interim. They (accumulators and cache) were never designed to provide the pressure source for normal flow. They do not help performance, only allow stable, normal operation.

[Guest Nick_N]

>>However (it's argued) that transfer is continuous. How? If you have to ask,.. and then turn around and answer yourself using "Sams Law" then the result becomes obvious"Sams" law,.. the same one that states:"Sam knows better than Phil Taylor, core technology lead for Aces, what video card and video card tech is best suited for FSX"Then we take strait values for pipe limits and extend that to say its not possible for it to happen.. apparently you missed quite a few classes somewhere in buffering technology and access.Since you brought it upThis is marketing:http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/whitepaper...-3Gbs_Sep06.pdfNotice how all the refereces are to "SEQUENTIAL" superiority and nothing about single drive random access ability. key phrases:sequential benchmark testingthe total sequential throughput.... here is a huge marketing hype lie about the drive compared to 10K Raptor platters.... "Conversely, modern 7200-RPM enterprise-class SATA drives boast 3Gb/s interfaces, enabling them to deliver significantly higher performance than 10K-RPM SATA 1.5Gb/s drives when deployed in the multi-drive configurations typical of enterprise storage."Wow!!!!!!... I gott'a get one for my single drive enterprise MSFS system ....off>And you are telling someone who does not even have the standard on their motherboard to run a single drive and it will be faster than the Raptor?If you are not using that 3Gb/s drive in a multi I/O system in a enterprise configuration and setup, even the sales people at Seagate have to admit its NOT FASTER THAN A RAPTOR... and NOTHING they said refers to a RANDOM ACCESS APPLICATIONIf anyone is going to lie or screw with the truth, that PDF would say it and guess what.. that PDF says the drive is NOT faster than a 10K Raptor for the use in this threadFSX is a RANDOM ACCESS applicationhydraulic system?I would say this is very sad, however given the tenacity you continue to use in posting your run-around horsechit engineering based on a single focused area like a magician does with his "audience' as you call these people,... at this point its a ditch effort to save your rep here, its not sadits patheticWann'a go for another one? Remember though, 3 strikes and you're out!I keep pitch'in em and you keep missin'um sonWe gotta fix that!get rid of that loadin dock!

[Guest Nick_N]

>Question will I notice any significant speed improvement by>going from my current 60 Gb + 250 Gb 7200 rpm IDE drives to>the 7200.11 SATA drive?>I do not use the forum in linear mode so I missed this question, apoliogiesIts about the bus interface to the controller and the drive ability. If the hard drive(s) can take advantage of that bus (or visa-versa) there will be a performance increase, if not the performance will be the same. Taking advantage of the bus is not simply centered on mechanics and electronics. File system stradegies also play into that result which is where the Seagate engineering information about the limited advantages of the 3GB/s standard in single drive use came from. All things considered on your motherboard, the performance increase will come from the drive and not all from the controller. Therefore placing a 32mb cache drive which is specifically designed for sequential multi-I/O but is of better firmware and hardware design than the 250 I can see a performance increase for you but not a 'massive' one. Most of that will come from the platter size and there will be advantages based on the buffer too. I found many SATA drives that did no better than ATA100/133. its a combination of the drive design, the firmware and the controller to buss connection that makes it all come together.The next step in SATA (3.0) is not about the controller making the system faster its about expanding the pipes to allow drives such as SSD to have what they need where with 3GB/s they are near saturating the 3GB/s spec http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArt...cleID=210101445The original question was which was faster (not cheaper) for you.. the 74GB Raptor or the 32Mb cache 500GB drive. Even Seagate marketing avoided the word "Random" like the plague in their technology marketing write-up and they did not lie or twist anything.. they simply omitted information but they were very specific in what the drive is all about which is better suited for enterprise multi-I/O systems and their tests are all based on sequential read benchmarks.The fact that the results and their conclusions were all based on sequential read performance also means the performance of the application in question on their drive (MSFS) can not be judged correctly using their data. MSFS is a random access application where the most critical aspects of performance are in fact rotation speed and lower access ability, along with file system placement strategies.In the write-up from Seagate on the advantage of the single drive to the 3GB/s standard they are again very specific about where that drive will place its performance ability. What they posted is not a lie, nor is it marketing hype. One must have a real understanding of electronic engineering with hard drive technology in application to completely grasp their explanation about the controller, cache, internal communication and sequential access in relation to the file system in use (video editing type), however, ---even if we assume--- what they posted was marking hype, no where - anywhere does any of their material say that the drive will overtake a 10K Raptor in single drive use.If what Seagate posted was a complete marketing lie, WD legal would have them is court by now.So the conspiracy theory of marketing not telling you the truth does not compute in this case.In the 2nd write-up again they did not lie, they simply omitted the information where the 1.5GB/s 10K platter truly overtakes the 3GB/s drive. Unfortunately that is where MSFS comes in, in single drive random access performance on your motherboard controller, the right Raptor will be faster than the 3GB/s hard disk and there is no way to argue that unless the person is simply pulling numbers out of the air, applying illogical values to the argument because they leave out specific engineering for the application/file system to the hardware design, and then concluding with their own 'theory'. Using "it takes special tests to see the difference" is a cop out to try and suggest the difference is minimal and will not help. In that, the advice from that source is better suited for marketing than engineering.My suggestion you go for the 500GB drive was not because it was cheaper, better or faster for single drive use, as Seagate engineering and marking have suggested, but because you will most likely exceed the geometric access advantage of the 74GB Raptor all mechanical drives suffer from when they become full and simple physics takes over, very effectively reducing their performance. In proper consideration of the situation in which the larger Raptor is not an option, I think the 500GB drive will serve you better in the long run and you can expect better performance out of it as compared to what you are using now based more on the platter size and the modern internal design as compared to your older drives.I do apologize to you for the sidetrack that took place in your thread however the attack that was crafted and the carefully selected information posted and illogically expanded on had absolutely nothing to do with helping or assisting you make an informed decision, nor as usual did it come with any source in authority or verification. I think the fact that Seagate was forthright and simply omitted information over twisting the facts goes a long way in stating the true ability of the drive in the application it is best suited for, and where it will fall short in compare to a 1.5GB 10K drive. And always keep in mind in the future that 'sequential read' benchmarks are not in any way relevant to MSFS and how it will run on a drive or controller.:-)