Cache or RPM?

[HiddenStupid]

in Hard Drive.... which is more important? which determine the fast reading, fast loading? cache or RPM?

I saw a hard drive with 7200rpm, 32mb cache and the other hard drive I saw is 15,000rpm but only 16mb cache.

which is faster? which read faster? which load stuff faster? more cache or more rpm?

 

[Deleted member 3]

Cache helps with small files, however when transferring huge files 15K RPM will help a lot, however these are SCSI/SAS disks. Besides, I don't think they exist as 1TB drives atm.

Either way, you can't afford going the 15K road.

 

[W1zzard]

rpm all the way. difference between 8 mb and 16 mb cache is pretty small and every modern drive has 8 mb anyway

 

[Deleted member 3]

rpm all the way. difference between 8 mb and 16 mb cache is pretty small and every modern drive has 8 mb anyway

Plus, when using 15K drivers I'd say the controller itself has plenty of cache

 

[HiddenStupid]

I have 2mb cache and I can feel the sluggish when opening folders full of pictures.

but 15,000rpm sounds so fast as I usually see 7200rpm.

btw I never had beyond 7200rpm or below 7200rpm before

 

[Darknova]

15,000rpm is SCSI, and you need a seperate controller for those.

You can get 10K rpm from WD, the raptor series have that, but they are incredibly expensive IMO.

Personally I recommend the Samsung Spinpoint series of HDDs. Ranging from 8mb to 16mb, All 7200rpm and deathly silent.

 

[panchoman]

rpm all the way. just grab a pci e scsi controller and you're good to go

 

[TheShadowFL]

If you're not a Computer Guru, Geek or Tech, forget the SCSI route.
That's not a path for amateurs.

What nobody has even mentioned yet is the SATA and SATA2 drives. They run at 7200 rpm but transfer data at rates many times faster than the older IDE drives.
SATA 2 is twice as fast as SATA 1.
All new motherboards today come with SATA2 ports on them. My MSI mobo has six SATA 2 ports. Even CD/DVD burners are coming out in SATA mode.

Within a few short years, we'll see the total demise of the IDE drive. Some drive makers have already announced the end of IDE drive production.

I'm currently running two Maxtor/Seagate SATA2 drives on my own system....one (200 gig) as the main drive and one (160 gig) as my backup drive. Data transfer is so fast that I can backup my entire C: drive to my backup drive, using Norton's Ghost 8.3 in just under five minutes, even with light compression.

SATA2 is becoming a standard in the computer industry and is showing up on many Major Brands of PC's.

In times past we had 3600 rpm drives that always ran cool. Then came the 5400 rpm drives that only ran warm when under really heavy load. Then came the 7200 rpm drives that can run from just warm to scalding HOT.
Can you even imagine how hot a 15,000 rpm drive will run?

Forgetaboutit!

Go SATA2.....it ROCKS!

The Shadow

 

[Frick]

What nobody has even mentioned yet is the SATA and SATA2 drives. They run at 7200 rpm but transfer data at rates many times faster than the older IDE drives.
SATA 2 is twice as fast as SATA 1.

Not entirely true.. Pretty much all SATA300-discs have a hard time reaching SATA150-speeds. So the difference is next to none, unless you have those new, überfast discs.

 

[panchoman]

isn't sataII (300) like loads better then sata 150. i'f i remember correctly, the sata 150 architecture allowed for 1.5 gb/s data rate while the sata II allowed for 3.0 gb/s data rate?

 

[Frick]

isn't sataII (300) like loads better then sata 150. i'f i remember correctly, the sata 150 architecture allowed for 1.5 gb/s data rate while the sata II allowed for 3.0 gb/s data rate?

Yeah, but the hardrives aren't that fast. Some SATA-drives can reach like 170 or so, but most of them don't work much faster than the UltraDMA-standard.

 

[hat]

hard drive heat is easily solved with a cheap hard drive cooler or just a fan pointed at them.

//just go for a cheap 200+GB SATAII drive

 

[Steevo]

Density beats RPM. Hands down. Or up.

 

[ex_reven]

Density beats RPM. Hands down. Or up.

Perpendicular ftw

 

[Chewy]

Seagate just released its 1tb 7200.11 drive.. it has 32mb cache.. not sure how well it performs but Im pretty sure it beats a raptor. (maybe). The the 500, 320gb 7200.11 drives should be coming out soon.. should be interesting.

Also is seagate and seasonic related? lol

Edit: from re-reading up top maybe the jump from 8/16mb cache to 32 will make a decent improvement.. but that extra cache will cost more too.

 

[panchoman]

nope seagate =/ seasonic.

seasonic = psu oem and psu brand

seagate= hard drive manu.

 

[W1zzard]

wd raptor is absolutely worth it in my opinion. its what will make the biggest speed difference once you got a fairly decent rig (no not in FPS)

 

[JacKz5o]

Definitely RPM. Benchmarks show there is little difference between 8MB and 16MB HD cache.

The computers at my school's computer graphics section have Raptors and Photoshop CS3 loads in less than 2 seconds

 

[Chewy]

^^ cool they have NCQ ones now too.. I think my raid0 is faster than one Raptor though.. soon I will part with one of my seagate drives.. who knows I may just fork out $$$ for ONE Raptor.. humm maybe 2x 74gb raptors.

Edit: wooh thier expensive little buggers them raptors lol.. maybe they will go on sale someday.

 

[Deleted member 3]

I think my raid0 is faster than one Raptor though.. soon I will part with one of my seagate drives.. who knows I may just fork out $$$ for ONE Raptor.. humm maybe 2x 74gb raptors.

Correct, your access times are higher though. Access times matter a lot when not working with big files.

 

[Disparia]

Raptors are pretty nice, I have a "Dell Raptor" (80GB) in my box at work. But right now I'd love some 7200.11 action (speed and capacity).

Here's my 7200.10 along with my older WD drive: HD Tach

The 7200.11 are supposed to break triple digits in sequential reads.

I thought I have a screenie of my Dell Raptor... but just take the above link and imagine the 7200.10 line, but starting at 90MB/s.

 

[Steevo]

I believe we should setup a test mark of loading Steam in seconds after a reboot, loading three levels of HL2 after the initial load.



That is and will be the very best test of actual disk load times and remove the cache from being a factor. Make a movie of it.