PDA

View Full Version : 320 8MB vs 500 16MB


Pages : [1] 2

Mr Bigman
11-30-07, 07:10 PM
I notice a nice improvement on one of my systems.

i had 2 320 WD drives in raid 8MB Cache each and put in 2 500 WD 16MB each raid. Nice difference the extra cache makes ha?

How much performance would this be in certain cases besides loading?

I do see much faster loading times in games and this is good for geting the content to the GPU's faster for rendering over the 320's i had.

This isn't my main rig so not to wurried much about what it can do.

My main rig has a few high profile drives like the 750's so i can't compare the changes cuz i didn't change those drives out like i did in the other rig.

Mr Bigman
12-02-07, 02:26 AM
WOW.

mythy
12-02-07, 02:46 AM
:headexplode: what?


So you notice a nice performance boost but your asking us how much of a increase you got... I think I must have been drinking again :) I'll come back to this thread in the morning and reread

sharvin
12-02-07, 03:05 AM
no I think you read right bagel burger.

Muppet
12-02-07, 04:44 AM
Well, we now have the 32mb cache Seagates

mythy
12-02-07, 04:45 AM
HOW DARE YOU!!! It's not Burger!!!! :thumbdwn:

Muppet
12-02-07, 04:50 AM
HOW DARE YOU!!! It's not Burger!!!! :thumbdwn:
No its a croissant ( not sure about the spelling though )

mythy
12-02-07, 05:04 AM
Actually it is a .GIF image but what ever :p

Madpistol
12-02-07, 11:07 AM
HOW DARE YOU!!! It's not Burger!!!! :thumbdwn:

Mmmmmmmmm.... Burger..... :spam:

bacon12
12-02-07, 11:19 AM
HOW DARE YOU!!! It's not Burger!!!! :thumbdwn:

No its a cir'sammich. :wonder:

methimpikehoses
12-02-07, 11:41 AM
I'm hungry.

Mr Bigman
12-02-07, 01:10 PM
Me too, Soem BK sounds good now.

nekrosoft13
12-02-07, 01:52 PM
1tb samsungs are the fastest now

max trasfer off 120mb/s

Dazz
12-02-07, 02:12 PM
Cache doesn't make that much of a diffrence really it's the size of the platters, hard drives perform best with large platters as the data stays at the begining of the drive it does not need the head to move as much however once space starts to fill up you will see a huge impact impact and thats when rpms become more importent. Infact the Western Digital Raptor X drives are still the fastest with average write and reads speeds. You would not benchmark with highest max fps in a game you are after min and average the same goes for hard drives bust speeds are exactly that.. bust.

CaptNKILL
12-02-07, 02:23 PM
1tb samsungs are the fastest now

max trasfer off 120mb/s
Thats just insane.

Me want.

nekrosoft13
12-02-07, 02:54 PM
The Hitachi 1TB is still faster than the new Seagate and the WDC. I'm still waiting on a comparison between the Hitachi and the Samsung. Do you have a link to that Samsung review?

Having digested the benchmark results, we can get over the fact that the new Spinpoint F1 comes a few months later than announced by Samsung. The Korean uber-company, which produces virtually everything from simple electronic devices to industrial-scale technology, really made it: it beat Hitachi, Seagate and Western Digital when it comes to performance. Hitachi and Seagate still offer better access times, which is why Samsung does not dominate the I/O benchmarks, but only the Barracuda 7200.11's access time is noticeably quicker. The maximum throughput of 118 MB/s is up to 18% faster than Seagate's 100 MB/s maximum, and the average and minimum throughput when reading and writing also dominate the benchmark results. When compared to WD's Caviar GP, the new Spinpoint F1 by Samsung offers roughly a third more throughput, which is very respectable.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_overtakes_with_a_bang/index.html

CaptNKILL
12-02-07, 04:31 PM
I think the 500Gb Seagate 7200.11 with 32Mb cache is pretty tempting at only $120:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148288

I'd say thats about the best price\performance ratio you can get now.

The 1Tb drives are pretty expensive per gig.

If samsung released a 500Gb model of their new drive and it performed similarly for $120 or less it'd be awesome.

I don't really need any more space though. I have around 800Gigs and I have probably another 400gigs in other hard drives I'm not using in this system.

Mr Bigman
12-02-07, 06:05 PM
Yea and the Raptors are still expensive. I got 2 of them in raid0.

My second setup beats out the raptors by 60mp's. nice increase vim.

mythy
12-02-07, 06:13 PM
its not all about throughput its more about access times ;) 10,000rpm FTW

CaptNKILL
12-02-07, 08:45 PM
its not all about throughput its more about access times ;) 10,000rpm FTW
I've always heard this, but I've never seen any benchmarks that show that access times boost performance.

What are some ways to measure this?

BTW, its getting harder and harder to justify the completely outrageous price of Raptor drives. $150 for 74Gb vs $120 for $500 Gb? :headexplode:

crainger
12-02-07, 08:48 PM
Here one 150GB Raptor is around $300
I bought two 500 Sammy Sungs (Which are already fast) for $150each and RAIDed them. So for my $300 I have almost 1tb and better speeds than the Raptor.

nekrosoft13
12-02-07, 09:16 PM
I've always heard this, but I've never seen any benchmarks that show that access times boost performance.

What are some ways to measure this?

BTW, its getting harder and harder to justify the completely outrageous price of Raptor drives. $150 for 74Gb vs $120 for $500 Gb? :headexplode:

access time will boost performance for 1,000 of tiny files. for larger files faster transfer speed is more important

mythy
12-02-07, 10:18 PM
Usually OS boot up shows the difference...

CaptNKILL
12-02-07, 11:55 PM
Usually OS boot up shows the difference...
I rarely reboot any more.

I guess its not much of a big deal then.

mythy
12-03-07, 12:49 AM
lol what I meant was its a common benchmark for testing. Lower latencies improve every day to day task but really shine in servers and in situations where many smaller files are being accesses rapidly