HDD Discussion

[Zorro]

Re: HDD Discussion

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Okee dokee.

[Per Hansson]

Re: HDD Discussion

Not to bash on you Zorry or anything but if you take a looksie over at Storagereview they have a very nice benchmarking rig, so all their current tests (done with it) are comparable

You will see that the Raptor is way way faster in access time, actually for desktop use it is even faster than almost every single SCSI 15000RPM harddrive; because they are built for fileserver usage, not single user usage cenario

http://www.storagereview.com/article...500ADFD_1.html

[Zorro]

Re: HDD Discussion

You will see that the Raptor is way way faster in access time, actually for desktop use it is even faster than almost every single SCSI 15000RPM harddrive; because they are built for fileserver usage, not single user usage cenario

Did you even look at the benchmarks I posted? I'm scoring 6ms in access time. The access time for the Raptor in that review posted between 7.7 and 9ms. So, it's slower than my system. As far as transfer times are concerned, obviously my Hitachi can't match the Raptor.

[gonzo0815]

Re: HDD Discussion

Yes, Gaming was the main purpose, for the mentioned system, therefore it was equiped with a gf 7800 512mb, 2gb ram and an x2 3700.
But all the other task the system musst handle too (normal persons don`t have several dedicated systems here ) .
I don`t know if the raptor is the point there or what else, but from my personal and subjective view, this system was realy realy fast in all hdd related task (in real world daily use), and for sure i don`t have any <7200 rpm hdd in any of my other systems. I have maxtor, seagate and even hitachi 7200rpm units and not one of those can subjektively come close to the raptor rig.
May bee is multitasking the point that mathers regarding windows and hdd and the maxtor with the good sequential read can do it faster, even with a shit of ram, windows allone has no use fore.....

[Per Hansson]

Re: HDD Discussion

Did you even look at the benchmarks I posted? I'm scoring 6ms in access time. The access time for the Raptor in that review posted between 7.7 and 9ms. So, it's slower than my system. As far as transfer times are concerned, obviously my Hitachi can't match the Raptor.

Nuff said.
Oh, and no, I do not trust any other site bar storagereview when it comes to harddrive benchmarking, because they know what the actual numbers mean and are able to explain them properly

Oh, and just to be sure, so your drive scores 6ms... Okay, lets take a looksie at the fastest SCSI 15000RPM drives in the world:

This would put your 7200RPM desktop drive right up there with the Maxtor Atlas 15k drive and Fujitsu MAU. There this time I did bash you but I can simply not stand to read misinformation like this
Nuff Said X2

[arneson]

Re: HDD Discussion

Nuff Said X2

You quoted " The Thing ".

[Zorro]

Re: HDD Discussion

There this time I did bash you but I can simply not stand to read misinformation like this.

The only misinformation is coming from yourself. You keep showing me benchmarks for Hitachi drive models DIFFERENT THAN MY OWN. Your benchmark "bash" is meaningless. It's like you're intentionally trying to avoid addressing my specific drive model; why else do you keep posting benchmarks for the SATA version, when I'm using the PATA model? Secondly, just because it's SCSI, or new technology, SATA-I/II, etc..., doesn't mean that it will automatically have the fasteset access times. The latest trend in technology has been for higher BANDWIDTH, not faster access times. The PC133 RAM on my Pentium-III operates at 2-2-2-5-0. The most recent developments in DDR-II, which is significantly faster than all previous forms of RAM, are lucky if they can operate at 4-4-4-8.

Nuff Said? You don't even know what you're talking about. You can't find benchmarks for my drive, and then you're going to talk as though you have a clue what it can do? As for this comment from you: "they know what the actual numbers mean and are able to explain them properly." 6ms is 6ms. There's no interpretation, no translation... it simply is. Deal with it.

Nuff Said X2

Why are you using comic books quotes in a serious discussion about hard drive technology? What... do you think it makes you cool or something???

[tiresias]

Re: HDD Discussion

Right. As the most famous blind, omnigender/transsexual prophet of Ancient Greece, the solution to this mystery just occurred to me.

Q. How can it be, that a Hitachi 7200rpm drive be as fast in terms of access time as a SCSI 15000 rpm Maxtor Atlas on a LSI Megaraid PCIX controller?

A. Why 'tis simple. The Hitachi has been OVERCLOCKED.

[gonzo0815]

Re: HDD Discussion

Lol, Zoro, i think you should stay a little calmer. Don`t take this to seriouse. I don`t know mutch about hdd in a praktical way, but i know that the benchmarking of hdd isn`t the easiest thing to do it right. And for sure, i can find a lot of benchmarks which pare ebsolut rubish.

And the next hting i realy know is that rpm of hdd drives realy mather. i have used hdds from 120MB till 300GB and rpms -as far as i can remeber - from 3000 upwards. And it was always the steps in rpm and or storrage density, which have lead to any improvemnt regarding overall performance. The price for the 10000rpm units is not only because of the speeds, look at the datasheet and wonder about MTBF data.

And most persons on this forum are in any way far more experienced in this kind of stuff.

So pls don`t get angry, if any paper or worthless benchmark has lead you to something strange nummbers....

And shure, there is mutch marketing in this bussines to, but mostly against the real improvements of rpm, as this is mutch more expensieve to build.

[Zorro]

Re: HDD Discussion

Yes, Gaming was the main purpose, for the mentioned system, therefore it was equiped with a gf 7800 512mb, 2gb ram and an x2 3700.

Why the heck didn't you say this earlier? A GF7800... that's no mid-level card, and it's gonna last you a lot longer than 3 - 6 months.

[Per Hansson]

Re: HDD Discussion

Okay Zorro, so if I understand your last post properly then you are saying that your IDE drive is faster than every other IDE/SATA drive in that benchmark I posted?

And being on par with the performance of the 15k RPM SCSI drives? I'm just trying to understand...

And since you said "You don't even know what you're talking about" than can you please just try to explain this to me? Because I obviously can't understand it, and just for the heck of it I will not shut up untill you manage to proove me wrong, which might take some time...

EDIT; Lastly it is a bit difficult to find a benchmark with exactly the same drive as your, since you never say what model it is, just that it is a Hitachi IDE 160GB drive, they have made a few though the years you know...

[Topcat]

Re: HDD Discussion

Why the heck didn't you say this earlier? A GF7800... that's no mid-level card, and it's gonna last you a lot longer than 3 - 6 months.

to 6 months from a video card?>!? Uhmm, no. My Radeon 9800 ran almost 3 years, most all games ran on it just fine. the upgrade revolution is over, thanks to a stale PC market. Theres no need to upgrade hardware every 6 months anymore if you buy good hardware to begin with.

[Zorro]

Re: HDD Discussion

Q. How can it be, that a Hitachi 7200rpm drive be as fast in terms of access time as a SCSI 15000 rpm Maxtor Atlas on a LSI Megaraid PCIX controller?

A. Why 'tis simple. The Hitachi has been OVERCLOCKED.

1. I'm using an NForce2 based motherboard, the PCI interface is independent of the FSB/DRAM, therefore the hard drive is not overclocked. See attached.

2. I did two tests of the hard drive, one with SiSoftSandra, the other with AnalyzeDisk, the same program used by StorageReview and Tweakers. Sandra posts an average access time of 6ms, AnalyzeDisk reports 12ms, see attached. Both scores put my drive in the SCSI/SATA range. That puts my drive in the same range as an IBM Ultrastar 18ES 9GB SCSI according to your venerated websites. So, yes... a PATA can drive can be that fast, even according to the program/website you support. You have no where to go with your arguments now.

[Zorro]

Re: HDD Discussion

to 6 months from a video card?>!? Uhmm, no. My Radeon 9800 ran almost 3 years, most all games ran on it just fine. the upgrade revolution is over, thanks to a stale PC market. Theres no need to upgrade hardware every 6 months anymore if you buy good hardware to begin with.

Why are you giving me grief? Gonzo0815 is the one who made the claims that a video card will only last 3-6 months:

In about 3-6 month any VGA will be very slow and outdated, so why buying some overpriced high end gfx?. Same is for cpu power, there are always a point where you won`t get mutch value foryour bucks.

You're repeating what I already said:

3 years on the same card that was considered mid-level at the time I bought it... if I'd bought the 9700, $50 more at the time, I'd be upgrading next year, as opposed to next month.

My Radeon 9800 ran almost 3 years, most all games ran on it just fine.

[Zorro]

Re: HDD Discussion

Lol, Zoro, i think you should stay a little calmer. And most persons on this forum are in any way far more experienced in this kind of stuff. So pls don`t get angry, if any paper or worthless benchmark has lead you to something strange nummbers....

Don't read my posts as angry, I'm not.

[Per Hansson]

Re: HDD Discussion

Zorro, you still did not say what harddrive you actually have but I can assure you that the difference between a drive with IDE and SATA is negliable, if you do not trust me you can look up an article at Storagereview where this was tested and see for yourself... (of course the drives themselves must be identical, i.e. for example a Maxtor Diamondmax 11 with either SATA or PATA interface will be within 2% of each other.)

Sisoft sandra is useless as a disk benchmark, it is a highly unreliable estimate and that is it, serious review people never use it for anything bar a one note that okay, it can deliver this theoretical bandwidth or whatever you want to test...

Storagereview uses IPEAK SPT's AnalyzeDisk suite and just as you yourself prooved your drive scores 12ms, just like most other IDE/SATA drives in the same league...

Quote: "Average Write Access Time- An average of 25,000 random write accesses of a single sector each conducted through IPEAK SPT's AnalyzeDisk suite. The high sample size permits a much more accurate reading than most typical benchmarks deliver."


Note: to make this image smaller the slowest drives have been removed, it is from the Storagereview performance database:
http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html

[Zorro]

Re: HDD Discussion

Sisoft sandra is useless as a disk benchmark, it is a highly unreliable estimate and that is it, serious review people never use it for anything bar a one note that okay, it can deliver this theoretical bandwidth or whatever you want to test...

Yeah? Tiresias posts benchmarks from Tweakers, but they use Sandra and you say nothing about it, see attached. Biased much?

You don't need to post large photos, btw. It's easier just to link to the benchmarks, and that particular one you posted has already been linked.

I can assure you that the difference between a drive with IDE and SATA is negliable, if you do not trust me you can look up an article at Storagereview where this was tested and see for yourself... (of course the drives themselves must be identical, i.e. for example a Maxtor Diamondmax 11 with either SATA or PATA interface will be within 2% of each other.)

You people haven't actually been reading my posts, have you? What you're saying now, I said YESTERDAY in not so many words:

My Hitachi 7200rpm IDE drive comes within 5MB/s of my Raptor. The SATA-1 Raptors are an over-hyped bandwagon. SATA-II on the otherhand, my Hitachi can't hold a candle to it.

My Raptor scores 55mb/s. My Hitachi (TK7250 160GB PATA) scores 50mb/s. That's a 1.1% difference that I pointed out already. You need to pay more attention and read my posts carefully. Ignoring my evidence yesterday, only to agree with it today, shows that your argument is changing, and lacks a solid, stable basis. It looks like you're continuing to argue now just to keep from admitting you're wrong. I've been hiding nothing from you people, and have even posted benchmarks using programs you favor. And, all you can do is rehash and approach the debate from as many different angles as you can, just so you don't have to admit any mistakes. Dandy.

[Per Hansson]

Re: HDD Discussion

OMG!!!

What I am saying is that your Hitachi T7K250 with either SATA or PATA would be 1% difference

And a Raptor with SATA or PATA (if it existed) would also be within 1%

BUT: The difference between these two highly different drives is still a mile, the Hitachi T7K250 would get an avg write access time of 12ms, SATA or PATA.

The Raptor would get a write access time of 8ms SATA or PATA (yes, if it existed)

[tiresias]

Re: HDD Discussion

Yeah? Tiresias posts benchmarks from Tweakers, but they use Sandra and you say nothing about it, see attached. Biased much?

Well, I'm just special that way. (innocent look)

But hang on, is "Winbench 99 Disk Inspection" the same as Sandra? Winbench99 is what the access time measurements were made with, as it says on the top of the page.

...

PS. One more thing - the "overclocked HDD" was a joke, hence the two laughing faces! How would you overclock a hard drive anyway? Increasing the PCI bus frequency above 33MHz won't help at all, and only cause instability. I guess you could voltmod the drive's interface card, to make its spindle motor spin REALLY FAST!

[Per Hansson]

Re: HDD Discussion

Zorro, your drive is in the storagereview performance database, and also my screenshot above, it has an avg write access time of 13.1ms (yes the SATA version but we already agreed that the difference is negliable) The fastest Raptor has an avg write access time of 8.4ms, the slowest is at 9.4ms

EDIT; and on Hitachis own website for the T7K250 they list the avg acces time as "Seek time (read, typical) 8.5ms"
The same from Western Digital about the latest Raptor "Read Seek Time 4.6 ms"

Of course the manufacturers specs must be taken with a grain of salt, but with 100% certanity you can say that a drive will never ever be faster than what the manufacturer list themselves, more typically you always need to add atleast 2-3ms just like storagereviews results confirms...