Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

10000 RPM or more cache and bigger with 7200 RPM

Last response: in Storage
Share
May 26, 2008 4:00:05 AM

I am building a video editing system. I need a lot of space. I am going with minimum of 500GB system HD and dont worry I am getting a TB too. But what is more important here... Should I go with the faster 10000RPM's and lower disk space and 8mb cache or go with the 7200RPM's and more disk space with 32mb cache?

Also, what the deal with the Ultra 320 80 pin? Is that much faster then SATA and does my mohter board have to actually have a 80 pin input too or will it fit in another input?
May 26, 2008 4:18:43 AM

Well the Ultra 320 80Pin is SCSII, thats probably not whatt you're interested in. It doesn't fit on conventional motherboards. Anyways, back to your question.

For waht you are doing, I would acutally recommend using a smaller OS drive (like 200gb or so) and a nice raid setup for your actual editing scratch disks. Within the raid, i would use 7200 rpm drives.

When working with video, the files will be large. The advantage a 10k drive has over a raid system is seek time. However, The 5ms seek time difference of a 10k drive is negated when you spend 10-20 min working with that multiGB file from disk. For the same amount of money, you can get 2 7200.11 Seagates and put them into RAID 0. Throughput scales almots linearly thus while u spend 5ms seeking you will reduce that IO time dramatically by writing to disk info at near 2x the speed of a single 10k RPM drive.

10k drives are good when the files are small and numerous. But for video editing, large files like high throughput.
May 26, 2008 4:36:11 AM

weilin said:
Well the Ultra 320 80Pin is SCSII, thats probably not whatt you're interested in. It doesn't fit on conventional motherboards. Anyways, back to your question.

For waht you are doing, I would acutally recommend using a smaller OS drive (like 200gb or so) and a nice raid setup for your actual editing scratch disks. Within the raid, i would use 7200 rpm drives.

When working with video, the files will be large. The advantage a 10k drive has over a raid system is seek time. However, The 5ms seek time difference of a 10k drive is negated when you spend 10-20 min working with that multiGB file from disk. For the same amount of money, you can get 2 7200.11 Seagates and put them into RAID 0. Throughput scales almots linearly thus while u spend 5ms seeking you will reduce that IO time dramatically by writing to disk info at near 2x the speed of a single 10k RPM drive.

10k drives are good when the files are small and numerous. But for video editing, large files like high throughput.



Awesome dude. Thanks for the help. I think I will go with 2 250GB 7200 ES.2 32MB cache SATA 3.0GB. What do you think? They dont have a 7200.11 on newegg with all of those other high end goodies. So is the ES.2 better or worse?
Related resources
May 26, 2008 4:48:18 AM

The cache isn't really going to make a difference, what happens after the split second that the cash is either read or filled up is that the speed is the actual speed of the mechanical part of the drive.

32 megs of cach will be entirely emptied in 1/10th of a second using sata 2, then your speed is based SOLEY on the platters and heads, if you want more speed buy the new models with the 320 gig platters like the wester digital 320 (you need the "b3" model, otherwise it is 2 160 gig platters in one drive), the western digital 640, or new seagates, save the money you'd waste on cache and go for those higher density drives, you'll get a lot of boost because editing involves a lot of sequential writing when rendering, and that is helped by the higher densities and not cache.
May 27, 2008 1:39:38 AM

Double Post...
May 27, 2008 1:42:05 AM

The ES2 series is better, they are supposedly the cherrypicked selection of the 7200.11s (the actual drives should be identical in terms of capability). Also, RoyalCrown is right, cache for video editing really isn't that important as that small thing is gonnabe filled really quickly. For your selection of drives, you can go with Seagate 7200.11 or ES.2 or Samsung F1 series or the WD er... i forgot series, they all have high density and throughput of around 90MB/s per drive.
June 7, 2008 6:40:28 PM

hello,
can anyone tell me is core2duo T8300 800FSB/3mb cache good processor for video editing system? i am trying to get a laptop, so i come across dell xps 1730
with this processor, raid 0,2x200gb 7200rpm, nVidia 8700MGT Sli 512mb DDR3 Please help
June 8, 2008 3:34:58 AM

that with Adobe Premiere would render faster than real time for standard DVD quality video. Unlike a lot of other software, editing scales almost linearly with cpu speed/number of cpus so just get what you can
!