Seagate HD 15000rpm ultra160, Ibm 160 controller is what Im intresting in buying.
3.6 seek times sound good. Only thing is; when are they gonna come out with 64 bit drivers?! Actually I dont know which hard drives are available with 64bit drivers =(
cheetah 15k rom
buffer to host 160mb
Pretty close cost for both setups on has considerably less storage space for the dollar but I planned on buying a large external so.. Sound Good? I was wondering would I even notice the difference performance wise
Cheetah 15K drives are fast- no doubt (way better than Raptors). However, remember that you'll need a Ultra 160 or Ultra 320 SCSI controller to use the drive. You can buy PCI SCSI controller cards cheap. But the problem is if you don't have PCI-X or PCI 64bit you're wasting your time w/ 15K drives. The old PCI bus would be a huge bottleneck and significantly slow down use of that drive. I'd be like putting a Pentium 4 on a 486 motherboard (impossible I know, but I think you get the analogy).
That IBM Ultra 160 controller is PCI 64bit (which is backwards compatible w/ PCI 32bit). However, it's damned hard to find a motherboard with 64 bit PCI these days. PCI-X has pretty much taken over.
EDIT: PCI-E (express) SCSI controllers are virtually non-existant.
On the other hand, if you have SATA ports on ur motherboard, the WD Raptors are your best option. The vast majority of motherboards have SATA support through the southbridge or northbridge which is not a bottleneck.
What PCI bus is gonna choke at 80MB transfer speeds of a single 15k SCSI drive????
I agree, that if you are using a RAID0 drive with more than two 15K drives, you might be pushing the bus, but not with any single conventional hard drive.
That said, yes, the Raptors are faster for workstation/gaming applications, both in performance and price compared to 15K SCSI drives, especially so with the 150GB Raptor.
get a PCI-X scsi controller to remove your bus bottleneck.
and if you get a motherboard with scsi built in, you can avoid the cost of the controller card. Add to that these boards usually have their onboard chips hooked into a pci-x slot anyway.. and your good to go.
for burst speed and sustained transfer, scsi still wins. but when it comes to cost per GB, stata wins. its all where your priorities are.
do a quick price search for the raptor 150 vs other 10krpm and 15krpm scsi drives.
ANd I guess I've been brought back down to earth O well the raptor is more practical even though I wasn't trying to be. Saves me about 20 bucks(scsi setup was 124 including card and 80/68adaptor) and adds 4 times as much storage (9gb vs 36gb). I really was focusing on speed but hopefully the raptor will server my purpose. Thanks for the help in making the descision
Using a gigabyte quad royal with 4 8x pcie slots will get you there. stick a lsi megaraid 320 2e dual in one slot and dual 7800s in the other two. That leaves one slot for a tv tuner or whatever.
Ive built two of these, what fun. Using the base 128 meg cashe or go to 512 to wake the thing up. you can use the segate 10k 73s in raid 0 with no problem. Ive had file copy problems with xp during install using segates later 15k 36s in raid 0. The trick is to turn off the cashe until after the install.. and use a non sata dvd for install.
Now, go with another raid 0 on the second channel gamers. Load the game or better. maybe 7 photoshop files of 80 meg each all at once. Pick your jaw up off the table, and when your friends stop laughing, check the clock. Thats right, 4 seconds elapsed.
Now its time to send the Sata boys aka "cost effective allen greenspan types" back to their easy chairs. If money was reason, shoot... I dont do that kind of work.