When I referenced hard drives as paramount for system performance, I mentioned the 150GB Raptor, which is a good buy even at $270 because the hard drive is what most of us usually are waiting on when we wait on our new computers to do something (except for video encoding, and even then the hard drive speed matters).
I mentioned the 150GB because the 74GB Raptor wasn't as fast as the 150GB. But....WD has updated it's 74GB actually, and for $150 you can have a very great addition to your performance computer.
20% faster reads than a Seagate 7200.10! And that's saying something.
Notice in this chart both versions of the 74GB Raptor -- old and new -- and how they bracket the Seagate 7200.10 on read.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/19/enterprise_storage_solutions_so..._integr
Comments welcome. This idea of hard drive as more important than which dual core isn't common, but it's correct.
I like diversity of opinion, and I don't take it personally.
---------------------------------------------------
Edit: This follow-up op is of course to the point I've made repeatedly here in the cpu forum, regarding cpus, that other than video encoding or benchmarking, few of us need more speed than an C2duo 6400, and that a C2d 6400 and Raptor combination is cheaper and *better* than a C2d 6600 and Caviar, for example.
So this post about system performance is all about making smarter choices for overall performance, and why the hard drive is more primary to that than the cpu in most scenarios. For this reason, it's a interesting or meaningful opinion that does belong in the cpu forum, where posters routinely advise on cpu choice, and complete configurations.
I mentioned the 150GB because the 74GB Raptor wasn't as fast as the 150GB. But....WD has updated it's 74GB actually, and for $150 you can have a very great addition to your performance computer.
20% faster reads than a Seagate 7200.10! And that's saying something.
Notice in this chart both versions of the 74GB Raptor -- old and new -- and how they bracket the Seagate 7200.10 on read.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/19/enterprise_storage_solutions_so..._integr
Comments welcome. This idea of hard drive as more important than which dual core isn't common, but it's correct.
I like diversity of opinion, and I don't take it personally.
---------------------------------------------------
Edit: This follow-up op is of course to the point I've made repeatedly here in the cpu forum, regarding cpus, that other than video encoding or benchmarking, few of us need more speed than an C2duo 6400, and that a C2d 6400 and Raptor combination is cheaper and *better* than a C2d 6600 and Caviar, for example.
So this post about system performance is all about making smarter choices for overall performance, and why the hard drive is more primary to that than the cpu in most scenarios. For this reason, it's a interesting or meaningful opinion that does belong in the cpu forum, where posters routinely advise on cpu choice, and complete configurations.
Darned if I know. I put it first in the "homebuilt" forum, but I was following up here, because there is an issue as I see it -- which dual core to buy. And I said it matters less than which hard drive (!), and that provoked some discussion. 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram