Hardware Analysis Community Forums http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/ 2008-11-23T04:38:23-05:00 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/ http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif text/html 2003-04-05T20:06:39-05:00 Jeff Bone http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#29758 Say later this what? month?....... or was it meant to be later this quarter? or maybe this year?<br /> Down here in my patch its April..<br /> Is something the matter with me? text/html 2003-03-26T03:56:15-05:00 gavin stanton http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#28240 Who let this moron into the forum anyway? Hypertransport will p**s on SCSI. when you build your next PC, use scsi. God knows they will need the ignorant customer base.<br /> text/html 2003-03-25T23:40:25-05:00 Andrew Kim http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#28207 YOU f**kING DIP s**t, SCSI ARE THE FASTEST THEY COME!!!!<br /> the fastest ive seen is 3.2 not 7. an average of 7? BULL s**t!!!<br /> sorry for all the cussin text/html 2003-03-04T17:01:20-05:00 Xman_Hanoi http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#25341 It's very impression with me.<br /> Tran Thang - Hanoi., VIETNAM text/html 2003-02-28T05:58:37-05:00 Glenn Edgar http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#24634 Another thing about PCI-X is it is also 64 bit. The thing that makes these higher data transfer rates important, isn't just one drive doing data transfers, as one by itself will never use up that bandwidth, except in burst transfers. However, multiple drives can do sustained transfers using up all of the bandwidth. If you had 10 15k SCSI drives in a raid 5 array, you could use up even PCI-x. That's why higher end work stations, and servers often have multiple PCI buses. SCSI can transfer data from multiple drives simultaneously, where IDE can't. It can task switch between drives very quickly, but that's not the same thing. Also, the PCI bus has to share it's resources with other PCI devices. NIC's, video capture, sound cards, etc.... Also, a lot of IDE raid controllers offload a lot of the work to the CPU(there are a FEW exceptions), and SCSI RAID controllers don't. They handle it themselves. If you want serious speed, you HAVE to go SCSI at the moment. If Firewire drives take off, that could easily change though. text/html 2003-02-28T00:55:40-05:00 gavin stanton http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#24576 PCI X is 133 not PCI, and unless these are designed to run on PCI X standards they will not work with either pci x or pci x 2. text/html 2003-02-28T00:42:52-05:00 Math Wiz http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#24575 the correct speed of the PCI bus is 133MB/sec, and although it might limit SATA drives, sometimes the SATA drives interface directly with the Southbridge (or whatever the chipset calls it) and therefore hit the max 130MB/s for a few seconds, as no commercial hard drive can sustain this transfer rate. text/html 2003-02-24T23:27:12-05:00 gavin stanton http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#24139 Funny thing is, <br /> <br /> These ata 150 serial drives are still bound to a maximum throughput of your PCI bus ( i believe at best this is now 66mgz, unpumped) hats right kiddies. 150 is theoretical (and quite useless compared to SCSI) until mobo's develop either a dedicated bus for them, sort of like the AGP ports work, or switch to hypertransport protocols. text/html 2003-02-21T04:45:18-05:00 MrBungle http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#23532 im not sure what the real world test results would show but my dual 120 WD SE drives in RAID 0 config scored 1686 for a HD mark using PCMark2002 and my dads $300 10,000RPM SCSI drive with 3.6ms acess time only scored 780 pesonally im going to stay with IDE drives they are cheaper and work great. text/html 2003-02-21T03:18:34-05:00 andrew kairis http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#23524 I'm curious to know what the drive can do as in sustained transfer performance, yes the max is 150 and 320 respectively but no drive today comes anywhere near to either of those.<br /> <br /> I do agree that the X15 will be a better drive but thats the upper end of the enterprise market, this drive isn't set for that, its in a much lower priceing bracket (well it should be anyway)<br /> <br /> just food for thought, really seek time is what determines the responsiveness of the computer, not sustained transfer rate..... so in some cases RAID 0 would actually be slower then a single drive. text/html 2003-02-20T12:57:42-05:00 Andrew Albert http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#23386 they will come of age<br /> when they start comming down in price then they will just take off<br /> but atm they are limited to people who are just future proofing themselves text/html 2003-02-18T08:04:24-05:00 hotmetal   http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#23048 | But still, I personally think that SATA Raid will be the fastest<br /> | personally with that 5.2 ms average seek time.<br /> <br /> its a step in the right direction.<br /> <br /> | Because SCSI, like the best I've ever see was barely below 7 ms<br /> <br /> i think you are horribly mistaken, seagate cheetah x15 st318453Lw 18.4gb - 3.6 ms, ( 8mb cache ) - 15000 rpm - ultra 320 - 320mb/sec<br /> <br /> incase you missed that, 3.6ms seek time is going to be hard to beat..<br /> it will come in time, sure..<br /> text/html 2003-02-18T08:03:42-05:00 Homer Harrison http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#23047 I don't mean to be a nerd but I think people, in general, are getting sloppy with some naming conventions:<br /> <br /> Upper-case &quot;M&quot; for Mega(million), Lower case &quot;m&quot; for milli(thousandth)<br /> Upper-case &quot;G&quot; for giga(billion)<br /> Upper case &quot;B&quot; for Bytes(8-bits), lower case &quot;b&quot; for bits<br /> <br /> Homie Homes text/html 2003-02-12T16:23:04-05:00 Casanova http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#22283 SATA has a data throughput of 150 mb/s while SCSI orginally had 160 mb/s, but now there is 320 mb/s SCSI I believe. But still, I personally think that SATA Raid will be the fastest personally with that 5.2 ms average seek time. Because SCSI, like the best I've ever see was barely below 7 ms. <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":)" title=":)"><br /> <br /> Casanova<br /> Happy Gaming text/html 2003-02-12T15:30:38-05:00 ivandaman http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4900/#22278 <br /> if it comes out is it better than scsi ?? and how bout the price compared ?? which one would be recommended to buy ??<br />