8MB cache or ATA133?

[Yenny]

I'm building my first PC with a Gigabyte GA-7VRXP motherboard and Athlon 1800+. I probably use DDR 2700 if I can find Cl 2.0 for a decent price. I'll be using the PC for medium gaming and a little photo editing. So my question is for a hard drive. I don't know if I should go for a Maxtor with ATA 133 or for a 80GB Western Digital with 8 MB cache.

 

[orbz]

If your comparing ata133 to 8mb cache and you can get either one then I'd go with the WD with 8mb cache. Ata133 isn't much faster, if at all then ata100 but with 8mb of cache, there is a litte more gain. Take a look at this <A HREF="http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/02q1/020305/wd1200-06.html#conclusion_best_buy" target="_new">review</A>.

<i>Those who rally for UltraATA/133 are certain to remain unheard, since even the next drive generation will be unable to reach either the theoretical (100 MB/s) or the practical (~ 85 MB/s) limit of UltraATA/100. In addition, 120 GB is a capacity that is still below the critical size of 127 GB and certainly won't cause trouble with popular IDE adapters.</i>

Those who have that drive can probably give you a better idea of the performance.

:frown: :redface: :lol: :tongue: - What do you want to feel today?

 

[upec]

I agree. I also suggest the WD with 8mb cache because the bandwidth of ATA-100 is more than enought for current hard drive.

 

[kief]

WD Special Edition.....hands down!

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!

 

[Crashman]

ATA133 has little to no affect on hard drive performance, consider the fact that even the best drives only transfer at 45MB/s from the platters.

The extra cache of the 8MB WD drives does have a significant performance advantage.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[buddry]

8mb cache all the way. No comparison.

<b><font color=green>Garbage Can?</font color=green></b>

 

[Nate650]

I have the WD800JB and it is the best drive I've owned. Go for the WD.

 

[AEboy128]

I have the 40GB ATA-133 drive with the FDB bearings and it's been very good. I say go with the maxtor, unless WD has gone to 40gb platters also.

Tom's Hardware Tested... Buyer Approved!!

 

[dhlucke]

Yes, they have gone to 40GB platters. The 80GB JB isn't using them though, but the other two models are.

<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>

 

[AEboy128]

Nice...

Tom's Hardware Tested... Buyer Approved!!

 

[cakecake]

My personal choice wouldn't be something with very much density. I don't want it to fail on me later on, cause I know people who've had failed hard drive after failed hard drive. So I would stay away from anything higher than 40GB. Besides, my current one, an old 27.2GB maxtor from a couple years ago, is way more than enough storage for me already. I haven't tried to clean up space very much, but even so I don't think I've ever gotten past the 20GB mark. Usually I'm around 12GB-16GB at most! I'm building a system identical to yours--gigabyte kt333/1800+/etc. and I think it would be wiser if I were you to go with a smaller, faster drive that's dirt cheap too. Your MB has on-board RAID, how about getting 2 fast 20GB drives (I'm not up to speed on the current drives out there right now so I can't recommend anything) and using RAID 0? It would probably cost you $140/150 total including shipping.

 

[Zlash]

And those people with failed drives probably had IBM's =p. There's no reason not to get something over 40 if not around 100.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[10Mhz8086]

I upgraded from a IBM 75GXP 40GB HDD, I had all kinds of problems with it from the get-go. Then I upgraded my PCs cooling and the problems went away... well anyways, I can tell you that the IBM drive acutally felt quicker, but the 800JB has a high transfer rate. I do alot of video editing and with that drive normal operations are much faster. But when comparing boot time and normal access my IBM drive felt quicker to respond. Just my .002 oh and get the 8MB over the ATA133, ATA133 isn't much help.

Who ever made up the phrase, "If it aint broke why fix it" just didn't get it...

 

[blah]

Hey, dude, there is no such thing as an IBM 75GXP 40GB HDD. No offence, but of coarse you will have all kinds of problems with the stuff which you have no good idea is all about. And as far as IBM being snappier than any other drive, you are absolutely right ;>

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[lhgpoobaa]

actually according to storagereview.com the 800JB DOES use 40gb platters.

apparently UNLIKE other manufacturers who use the one drive name i.e. 120gxp in 40, 80 or 120Gb capacities W.D. is using different names for drives of the same data density

thus the 800Jb has 40gb platters, and is just the smaller bro of the 120JB.

wierd
gotta be careful of what you are getting.

<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol:

 

[dhlucke]

That's odd, I could have sworn they were smaller for the 800JB. I wonder where I read that?

<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

now that u mention it...
i do remember that too

think it was storage review again before they got their hands on it.

they assumed that it was gonna use 27gb platters (and use 3 of em)

but they found its only got 2 platters of 40.

wierd.
definately confusing.

<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol:

 

[dhlucke]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>

 

[10Mhz8086]

Sorry that was a typo, I meant 30GB. Its a DTLA 3070

Who ever made up the phrase, "If it aint broke why fix it" just didn't get it...