I know there has been a few hdd threads lately and Im seirous about upgrading my hard drives. I currently have a IBM Deskstar that is supposedly 40G as it reads on the sticker bit is actually 30gb. The ibm is 7200 rpms and seems to be the quickest and quietest i own. Anyone ever heard of Quantum Fireball harddrives? I know i havent but that one is also 30gb and who knows how much cache it has.. Well now i have a nice mobo with 4 sata2 3gb/s ports that i can all run in raid. So i'm left with a descision get 2 80gb seagates or WD's for like 45$ each which i can run in raid but its only 160gb.. Or get this western digital that is 250gb 16mb cache and lots of room for 80$ with rebates. What would you guys do? Are my old harddrives bottlenecking my system? All my friends say i shuold get an lcd but i dont know should i go for speed or a digital video signal. plese help me make this descision
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
16mb Cache Vs 8mb cache
Collapse
X
-
Re: 16mb Cache Vs 8mb cache
Go for the big one, the cache is nice n large, (the platters have more stuff on them too, so you acces stuff faster.)what model though? I would reccomend the caviar. CRT is cheaper than lcd, dont do that LCD, you should upgrade your HD, that is opinionated, do what suits your needs.Last edited by orangutang91; 06-22-2006, 01:14 PM.
-
Re: 16mb Cache Vs 8mb cache
Get 2 250GB drives for raid and you won't be back in 12 months asking for more upgrade advice. As for brands, Western Digital or Seagate are the only two I would trust.GIgabyte GA-990FXA-UD3
AMD FX8120 @ 4GHz
Patriot 1866MHz EL series 2X4GB DDR3
Powercolour HD 6970 2GB w/XFX 8800GT 512MB Hybrid PhysX
Creative X-FI titanium HD w/Technics class A 300W amp and tower speakers
PC P&C 500W PSU
2TB Seagate
Coolermaster 690II w/Corsair H100 tucked under the hood
Comment
-
Re: 16mb Cache Vs 8mb cache
I believe Maxtor owns the Quantum Fireball name but they are no longer produced.Antec 900 case (4 120mm and 1 200mm lighted fans + UFO flashing light set + 2 12" and 1 6" Mutant Mods meteor lights) - Aerogate ll thermal controller - Asus M2N-e SLI - AMD 64 X2 AM2 6400+ - Corsair TX650 PSU - MSI 450GTS Cyclone OC - 2 X 2GB Patriot Extreme Performance PC2 6400 RAM - SATA 320 GB Seagate HD, SATA 300GB Maxtor HD and IDE 80 GB Samsung HD - Floppy Drive/Card Reader Combo - LG SuperMulti Lightscribe 18x DVD RW - Plextor PX-716A DVD r/rw - Windows 7 Home Premium 64
Crude but Effective ... it is a way of life.
Comment
-
Re: 16mb Cache Vs 8mb cache
Originally posted by TRIGGERI know there has been a few hdd threads lately and Im seirous about upgrading my hard drives. I currently have a IBM Deskstar that is supposedly 40G as it reads on the sticker bit is actually 30gb. The ibm is 7200 rpms and seems to be the quickest and quietest i own. Anyone ever heard of Quantum Fireball harddrives? I know i havent but that one is also 30gb and who knows how much cache it has.. Well now i have a nice mobo with 4 sata2 3gb/s ports that i can all run in raid. So i'm left with a descision get 2 80gb seagates or WD's for like 45$ each which i can run in raid but its only 160gb.. Or get this western digital that is 250gb 16mb cache and lots of room for 80$ with rebates. What would you guys do? Are my old harddrives bottlenecking my system? All my friends say i shuold get an lcd but i dont know should i go for speed or a digital video signal. plese help me make this descision
If you decide to run a raid 0 array with 2 drives, just remember you take twice the risk of something going wrong. I found that out the hard way when one of my drives died and everything was gone before I did a backup:(. In my opinion raid didn't seem to make much difference in speed anyway, maybe a 4 drive raid array using 2 of the drives to mirror the other two would be good but it would also get spendy . I personally suggest one big drive with a 16mb cache buffer for the OS and whatever else and then if you want, just use another internernal drive for backup purposes since an internal drive is cheaper and faster than external for the price.
As far as lcd goes, thats a whole different subject. I recently used a widesceen LCD for a system but I don't think the PC market is quite ready for that yet unless you like to look at a lot of poorly stretched images. I good side stretch feature or something better was really needed for the one I seen. Ofcoarse I didn't get a chance to mess with the settings much so maybe I missed something that could have made things look better without the crunch effect. If you go LCD I don't suggest a widescreen quite yet.
Comment
-
Re: 16mb Cache Vs 8mb cache
maxtor are crap, if i may say so, having owned several varying models.
when considering hard disks, the larger the platter, the better, and 16mb cache may only help a little. WD have the best warranty, from what i remember.
Comment
-
Re: 16mb Cache Vs 8mb cache
Those working with large volumes of OEM computers have always said Maxtor has the highest failure rate, but Maxtor was recently taken over by Seagate (and the transition is basically done; Maxtor lost around half of its employees), so its track record should improve.
Western Digital has three or five year warranties on most of its retail drives, however Seagate has five years on all retail drives and offers overall the "best" warranty.
Comment
-
Re: 16mb Cache Vs 8mb cache
I've not had any WD drives go bad on me in the ~15 years I've been working with hardware. I've had a few DOA though, but that could have been any number of things.
Seagate has improved quite a bit, and I'm actually considering buying their 750 GB since WD doesn't make anything larger than 320GB for PATA.
I'm sure you'd be happy with either brand, I'd suggest keeping with your price/performance reasoning.
Oh, and your Fireball probably has 1 or 2 megs cache, they were pretty good drives when they first came out, compared to the offerings at the time of course.
The more cache the better, but you won't be able to tell the difference between an 8 or 16 meg cache in real world performance.
Platter density, spindle speed and access times are what make more of a noticeable performance difference.
Hard drives continue to be the largest bottleneck in a CPU system, you will notice a good speed improvement with better hardware.
I just picked up a 20.1" Sceptre NagaIII for my parents CPU, the widescreen works well at it's native res of 1680x1050. Going for $250 @newegg after rebates...
Gaming was decent, nearly 100% acceptable to my picky eyes. Ghosting was there, but had to be looked for, nothing that was overly distracting.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824112176Last edited by matm347; 06-23-2006, 05:49 PM.
Comment
Comment