Tom's Hardware > Forum > Storage > Hard Disks > Which is better - ultra 320 scsi or sata 2?

Which is better - ultra 320 scsi or sata 2?

Forum Storage : Hard Disks - Which is better - ultra 320 scsi or sata 2?

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
johnsmith_54   07-05-2009 at 10:48:16 PM

Which is better for video editing, graphics work, gaming, etc? I have the opportunity to purchase a dual processor (single core) server that would come with three 146gig ultra 320 10000 rpm drives.

My other option is to build a dual or quad core workstation with a single 500g or 1 terabyte 7200 rpm sata 2 drive.

Please remove price from the equation. TIA!

Message quoted 1 times
Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
Bronze Storage badge sub mesa   07-06-2009 at 12:49:32 AM
- 0 +

Build a new one ofcourse, those old dual socket systems are terrible with performance-per-watt. Focus on a cheap quadcore, like Phenom II X4. Regular SATA drives will be fine.

------------------------------ ...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.
Reply to sub mesa
geofelt   07-06-2009 at 01:50:39 AM
- 0 +

As I understand it, video editing is somewhat cpu intensive, and definitely I/O intensive.
Gaming is I/O intensive onoy for level loads.

I suggest that you review the various benchmarks at www.storagereview.com They include scsci and sas drives as well as sata.
http://www.storagereview.com/php/b [...] h_sort.php

If you are not particularly price sensitive, I would suggest two WD 300gb velociraptors for OS and work. Put the final results on a large storage drive like the WD caviar black 1tb.

As to the cpu, I agree that building your own will be better. Servers are optimized for high volumes of short random requests, not sequential processing. A modern quad is not that expensive these days.

Reply to geofelt
croc   07-06-2009 at 03:11:50 AM
- 0 +

johnsmith_54 wrote :

Which is better for video editing, graphics work, gaming, etc? I have the opportunity to purchase a dual processor (single core) server that would come with three 146gig ultra 320 10000 rpm drives.

My other option is to build a dual or quad core workstation with a single 500g or 1 terabyte 7200 rpm sata 2 drive.

Please remove price from the equation. TIA!



Depends to some extent on the programs you expect to use. For instance, Photoshop cs3 is not well suited for multi-threaded CPU's, but cs4 is re-built to make extensive use of multi-threaded CPU's. Both will take advantage of more ram, especially when rendering. Maya 3d will use as much CPU and ram as you can throw at it. Autodesk later versions will also eat all of the threads you can give it, as well as as much ram as you can give it. None of the above are particularily drive intensive, but will write very large interim work files, so a fairly fast ~300 GB drive used as a scratch drive would be beneficial. Plus, when a project is finished, the drive can be simply formatted to get rid of all of the interim files used. They don't call the workstations used professionally 'workstations' for nothing...

Since price is not an issue, depending on the application, expect to spend 6k+USD for a professional quality workstation.


Message edited by croc on 07-06-2009 at 03:13:46 AM
Reply to croc
Bronze Storage badge sub mesa   07-06-2009 at 02:33:54 PM
- 0 +

How can you decide for the OP that price is no issue? I can't mind-read yet. :P

I also don't believe its necessary to invest over 6000 dollars on one PC. Is that really required? Ofcourse you can make everything more expensive but the gain would be minimal over slightly less powerful hardware.

I didn't hear him talking about quad-socket six-core systems yet, so he can probably build a powerful workstation for less than 1500 dollars.

------------------------------ ...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.
Reply to sub mesa
johnsmith_54   07-06-2009 at 03:59:46 PM
- 0 +

Thanks for everyone's replies. Sorry for any confusion caused. When I said that price was not an issue I meant the price of scsi drives in general. In other words, I was more looking to focus discussion on the technology, not on discounting scsi drives solely because they are more expensive.

The only real reason I was considering a scsi based system in the first place was due to the availability of a good deal with a server containing scsi drives. It seems like the consensus is that building my own system is the better option...

Reply to johnsmith_54
Raviolissimo   07-06-2009 at 09:24:01 PM
- 0 +

i had a dual Xeon system with the PCI-X Adaptec SCSI-160 controller, and just one or 2 drives on the SCSI bus.

i was surprised when i got a Shuttle system with 2 x 160 GB PATA drives. it was faster !

and SATA is faster than that.

Reply to Raviolissimo
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Storage > Hard Disks > Which is better - ultra 320 scsi or sata 2?
Go to:

There are 1335 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 2.617 seconds
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them