Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7200RPM worth it with ATA/100?

Last response: in Storage
Share
November 2, 2006 4:53:25 PM

im thinking about adding a new HD as i only have an 80GB in here right now which is constantly full, its capable of ATA/133 through an adapter card but it makes the boot up time rediclious so i just have it hooked up directly... so it only runs at ata/100. can someone gimme some suggestions for hard drives as well? thank you!

-robd

More about : 7200rpm worth ata 100

November 2, 2006 5:03:11 PM

ata/100 is way faster than the physical drive can sustain, so the main limit on throughput is the platter rpm. Definitely get a 7200rpm drive over a 5400rpm drive!
November 2, 2006 5:08:16 PM

suggestions on large ata/100 7200RPM drives?

:) 
Related resources
November 2, 2006 5:11:48 PM

What's your budget? What do you want to use the drive for? What size do you want? newegg.com, zipzoomfly.com, frys.com (specials), buy.com and other such sites are good places to shop.
November 2, 2006 5:18:53 PM

well, when i orginally bought the drive i tried to find watever was fastest b/c i was very into gaming...im trying to get back into gaming now but have been just needing space for torrent stuff...i have less the 3GB on this drive and it makes d/l'ing large stuff so difficult. so i guess big and fast? lol
November 2, 2006 5:29:15 PM

ill tell you though... an 80GB 7200.9 RPM hdd, is NOT fast... ...as a general rule, the more storage capacity the drive itself has, the higher your STR will be... and, drives with perpendicular recording (7200.10 RPM) are a good place to start though, as far as both capacity and speed.

again, it would depend on your budget

although, you did say ATA/100... im sure there are perpendicular recording drives that operate with a pata interface, like youre asking about
November 2, 2006 5:32:47 PM

good choice honestly :) 
November 2, 2006 5:43:32 PM

whether its ata/100 or ata/133 honestly wont matter... the reason being because no single drive is fast enough to be bottlenecked by even an ata/100 interface, let alone an ata/133/150/300 interface.
November 2, 2006 5:54:22 PM

Quote:
suggestions on large ata/100 7200RPM drives?

:) 


If you choose Western Digital, remember with the ATA100 Caviar drives that the "BB" has 2MB of cache and the "JB" has 8MB of cache (e.g., my WDC-WD800JB is much faster than the WDC-WD800BB even though they are both 7200RPM ATA100 drives. In fact, it surprises me that the WD800JB comes so close to the performance of my 74GB Raptor drive compared to "other" ATA100/ATA133 7200RPM hard drives)

I recommend the WD2500JB drive for best performance and size for the money...

EDIT: (read newer comments) There are currently no 7200.10 PATA drives and no official plans have been announced from any drive manufacturer to make one, so that may be out of the question at least for right now. (If anyone knows of something I missed, please post a url) Also, the size of the drive makes little difference until you reach the middle of the platters in the drive anyway, meaning if you do not NEED 250GB then don't get it since it will not even approach the speed bumps often enough to benefit. Even with the smaller drives having speed bumps closer together, collectively they are not as fast as the bumps on larger drives, but since you usually access the beginning 8GB on the drive 95% of the time anyways, it doesn't matter in the real world that much with gaming.

The 8MB cache will boost gaming performance the most. Also if you can get two hard drives and put the page file on the second one, do that. This way, loading games will use the primary drive, which is less important than the second one since that will be the one that the game stores temporary memory on. More RAM can also help a bit, but only to a point.

I don't list it in my sig., but I also use a WD300BB drive on my PC. It's a 30GB drive with the lower cache, and performance in games is drastically worse than on the WD800JB. I use the 30GB for storing my Vista RC2 OS, and my primary is the WD800JB (while I use the Raptor for music, the page file, videos, downloaded service packs/iso files/huge zip and rar files), and I've tried every other way of doing it--the method I use is by far the most efficient.

Just explaining that to say that there are many factors involved in getting the most performance out of your system. The last section of most hard drives is usually significantly slower than the rest of the drive, so never fill up your hard drive even if the page file is on another drive. The more free space and the less fragmented the drive, generally the better, unless you're dealing with a 250GB drive and only 4GB used situation as that is too close to the beginning to run quite as quickley.

Also, the beginning really isnt slow, it is just that the first section is dominated by system files, and using the same "platter" for system files and data files will force your drive to move back and forth all the time rather than using separate platters. There is never a perfect scenario, but my setup works better than any other setup I've tried :) 
November 2, 2006 5:58:59 PM

the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 has 16MB cache...
November 2, 2006 6:00:51 PM

My vote is for the Seagate. Those perpendicular recording disks really fly for 7200rpm.
November 2, 2006 6:15:34 PM

yeah... 16MB cache wont have a large impact, over a drive with 8MB cache... going for a drive with perpendicular recording however is the best choice, regardless.
November 2, 2006 6:18:43 PM

Quote:
yeah... 16MB cache wont have a large impact, over a drive with 8MB cache... going for a drive with perpendicular recording however is the best choice, regardless.


Again, please URL me to a perpendicular drive with 16MB cache that is ATA100 or ATA133. I probably would have switched over myself if Seagate had that, but as far as I know, they don't.

On a side note, by the way, there is reason for me to believe that 7200.10 drives are more prone to fail, at least in theory, than 7200.9 drives. They also run hotter than WD drives, which is the main reason I use three Western Digital drives :) 

If/when we use 7200.10 drives long enough to determine how prone to failure they are next to older technology, I may recommend them, but we don't really know how reliable they are yet as they are still relatively new. It is much too risky for me to "recommend" a drive that *could* fail withen one or two years. I like the reliable stuff, hence the old fashioned WD drives and the 5 year guarantee on the Raptor.
November 2, 2006 6:41:26 PM

Quote:
yeah... 16MB cache wont have a large impact, over a drive with 8MB cache... going for a drive with perpendicular recording however is the best choice, regardless.


Again, please URL me to a perpendicular drive with 16MB cache that is ATA100 or ATA133. I probably would have switched over myself if Seagate had that, but as far as I know, they don't.

actually, the first drive he asked about was a 7200.10 hdd over ata/100, made by seagate coincidentally...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...
November 2, 2006 6:43:20 PM

yeah i think thats the one im gonna go for...16MB cache, Perpendicular Recording...
November 2, 2006 6:49:19 PM

Quote:


Again, please URL me to a perpendicular drive with 16MB cache that is ATA100 or ATA133. I probably would have switched over myself if Seagate had that, but as far as I know, they don't.


someone already posted this link its the seagate 7200.10 for ide
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...
November 2, 2006 6:50:57 PM

Hmmm...Okay, now I fell kinda stupid :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops: 
November 2, 2006 6:55:18 PM

nah, its okay... anything is really easy to overlook.
November 2, 2006 6:58:19 PM

go with seagate!
November 2, 2006 8:28:50 PM

Quote:
Hmmm...Okay, now I fell kinda stupid :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops:  :oops: 

It does help to read the previous thread posts... :wink:
November 3, 2006 3:20:08 AM

Hence the feeling stupid part. (and the spelling error didn't help either :oops:  )
Related resources
!