SATA hard drive

[CRaZyMoFo]

yea ppl
im interested in buying a 120gb SATA hdd.
can someone tell me where i can purchase one and the price.
recommendations would b a help also.                    

[unforgiven]

i want bring one down from newegg.com ..its a 160 Gb seagate                    

[thrillseeker]

well i have a maxtor 120gb hdd it works fine just little humming...only paid 99.00 for it (still a bit costly though because i bought it in compusa but 2yrs warranty)                    

[cereal_killer]

u can get a maxtor 200 gb hd for 99.99 on amazon.com
7200rpm, 8mb cache                    

[Hitman_Jim]

check pricewatch.com
or amazon.com                    

[Crixx_Creww]

member guys that he is asking bout sata drives eh

www.pricewatch.com has some great prices on the sata and eide

also check www.supergooddeal.com

its a bunch ah dyslexic chinese dudes selling some mad stuff
they have the first ever sata usb 2.0 external hard drives
very very cool
                     

[CRaZyMoFo]

lol@chinese dudes
thanks for the info
will check the sites.                    

[coldstorm]

seagate the way to go with sata                    

[unforgiven]

i see pric ewatch sell used things ...how do you what new or used...i see the note books (some of them) stating "good condition"                      

[cereal_killer]

i agree with coldstorm seagate is the way to go                      

[W1nTry]

I have two hitachi 80Gb SATA 8mb buffers in RAID 0 so far so good, save an except the RAID was a b1tch to set up, it has a 3yr warranty got it from newegg.com for 73US each at the time.                    

[unforgiven]

oh i see the seagate has 5 Years warranty! from newegg.com
and they got alot of good customer fedback i will get that                    

[Synth]

I have two hitachi 80Gb SATA 8mb buffers in RAID 0 so far so good, save an except the RAID was a b1tch to set up, it has a 3yr warranty got it from newegg.com for 73US each at the time.

What do you use the RAID for?                    

[W1nTry]

RAID 0 is stripping so it performs better than having them run as separate normal drives. You should know that.                    

[Corbeaux]

Still didn't answer his question though. What do you use the speed for?                    

[W1nTry]

In the first instance the reasons behind going this route were:
1. I wanted a dual channel board and most come with SATA support hence I decided to get SATA drives.
2. I got the drives at good prices so I bought the two instead of one big one.
3. The board supports RAID so I figured what the heck, I hate long load times, and I notice the in some cases ever so small difference in these times.
4. Did I mention I hate load times, the RAID config has decreased these in games like Farcry, Doom III, and I watch alot of anime all of which is on my HD. Believe me I notice the difference when i pull things off my USB key or a cd and move them around and for that matter loading up the movies from the Drive is faster generally than from the 80GB ATA133 I have in the machine still.

5. Last but not least, JUST CAUSE I WANTED TO, my benchs go up... In all earnest I should not have bothered to answer ur ques but hey whaev.

One more thing I didn't expect but is a added bonus these damn drives format in like 10secs FLAT NO JOKE. I am a person who will prolly reinstall windows 2 times a year to keep things running as smoothly as I like so belive me that formatting time or LACK THERE OF is a blessing.                    

[Synth]

RAID 0 is stripping so it performs better than having them run as separate normal drives. You should know that.

"Performance" is highly subjective and dependant on the actual use of the drive's extra "speed".

Example:

Raid0 won't help video encoding under typical situations for example. So in that context it offers zero performance benefit.

That is why I asked WHAT.

People tend to assume always newer/technically superior always equates to "better".                    

[Synth]

 

3. The board supports RAID so I figured what the heck, I hate long load times, and I notice the in some cases ever so small difference in these times.

Did you bench before raid0 mode so you could compare this "perceived improvement"?

4. Did I mention I hate load times, the RAID config has decreased these in games like Farcry, Doom III, and I watch alot of anime all of which is on my HD.

Contrary to popular belief RAID0 DOESN'T decrease hd access time. Nor will it speed up loading of games unless the game required gigs of data loaded AS FILES into memory. Most perceived "loading" is due to cpu time needed to decompress textures etc...in other words vc or cpu or memory limitations...NOT HD xfer rates.


RAIDO primary benefit is to increase sequential xfer rate. Sequential xfer rates like in video capture. I should know because I used RAID0 mode for a year. I used it for high res video capture with huge data rates (~20MB/s). There I saw a tangible benefit with respect to dropped frames. RAID0 allowed me to increase sustained data rates so I lessened dropped frames ratio significantly.

Believe me I notice the difference when i pull things off my USB key or a cd and move them around and for that matter loading up the movies from the Drive is faster generally than from the 80GB ATA133 I have in the machine still.

No, I don't believe you. Because any modern hd ide or sata can easy cope with USB and Optical max data rates.

#1 Your comparing an IDE drive to SATA?
#2 Your comparing older drive to new gen drive?

Those are two unforgivable errors in your comparison. No wonder you came to such a conclusions about benfits of RAID0.

Now if you compared a before raid0 to after using SAME SATA Drive that be a start...

5. Last but not least, JUST CAUSE I WANTED TO, my benchs go up... In all earnest I should not have bothered to answer ur ques but hey whaev.

If your into benches and happy that it shows a theoretical increase thats your choice, but why do you bother posting if your not gonna defend yourself? Or post a childish response like "i dont give a damn what you think cause Im happy with myself" answer?

One more thing I didn't expect but is a added bonus these damn drives format in like 10secs FLAT NO JOKE. I am a person who will prolly reinstall windows 2 times a year to keep things running as smoothly as I like so belive me that formatting time or LACK THERE OF is a blessing.

10s..umm and normally (non raid0) it takes how long? Thats like 10s saved off of what say 30-45min complete OS install? Is that significant to you? You know you don't have to format to re-install if time so precious to you...                    

[W1nTry]

Raid0 won't help video encoding under typical situations for example. So in that context it offers zero performance benefit.

Don't do video encoding, at least not in a long time, that was never on my mind moving along.

Did you bench before raid0 mode so you could compare this \"perceived improvement\"?

Yeah I did on a friend on mine whos system is identical, the "perceived" HD scores are higher on my configuration. His was at the time a single SATA drive. Moving along.

Contrary to popular belief RAID0 DOESN'T decrease hd access time. Nor will it speed up loading of games unless the game required gigs of data loaded AS FILES into memory.

I never said it did, did I? (lets answer that NO) my access times are better by virtue of the specifications of the drives. This I know, hence why I CHOSE those drives over Samsung, or MAxtor etc. Moving along.

RAIDO primary benefit is to increase sequential xfer rate. Sequential xfer rates like in video capture. I should know because I used RAID0 mode for a year.

I guess I should have mentioned I don't have a TV in my room so I use my TVtuner card to do so and that now and then I DO capture video from G4TechTv and the like... so I guess THANKS for that point, I haven't done any captures since I changed the drives, but since ur year of experience says so I guess it must work better, i'll try and let u know. Moving along.

No, I don't believe you. Because any modern hd ide or sata can easy cope with USB and Optical max data rates.

#1 Your comparing an IDE drive to SATA?
#2 Your comparing older drive to new gen drive?

Those are two unforgivable errors in your comparison. No wonder you came to such a conclusions about benfits of RAID0.

Now if you compared a before raid0 to after using SAME SATA Drive that be a start...

I merely mentioned the USB drive as I was reffering to copying from my pen drive then moving them around on my various partitions as I have a tendancy to do every now and again when doing my organizing. And no crap i'd be comparing IDE to SATA I never said it was a fair comparison, though u said

People tend to assume always newer/technically superior always equates to \"better\".

Well I guess the reply to that is YES this time newer is better, but anyways. Last I check ALL benchmarks are made as a comparison to OLDER/CURRENT technology as defacto standards so I think ur comment is a MOOT point. Moving along.

If your into benches and happy that it shows a theoretical increase thats your choice, but why do you bother posting if your not gonna defend yourself? Or post a childish response like \"i dont give a damn what you think cause Im happy with myself\" answer?

Well I didn't realise that there would be anyone childish enough to persue this matter as has occured here, but I guess u proved me wrong    , that aside I do like to run benchmarks. And as for defending myself, well again I didn't realise I would HAVE TO since u obviously expect me to (wah was that about childish something...).Moving along.

10s..umm and normally (non raid0) it takes how long? Thats like 10s saved off of what say 30-45min complete OS install? Is that significant to you? You know you don't have to format to re-install if time so precious to you...

This was mentioned and here I shall quote myself:

One more thing I didn't expect but is a added bonus these damn drives format in like 10secs FLAT NO JOKE.

If u will CAREFULLY look at what exactly was said (being one who seems to LOVE to point out to other ppl when they misquote u) a benifit of the DRIVES not RAID, DRIVES.... that has nothing to do with the RAID. The formatting times are the same RAID or no, that comment was made towards the greater POST not YOU or RAID.

Moving along to something that doesn't take up so much of my time.                    

[Synth]

QUOTE  
Raid0 won't help video encoding under typical situations for example. So in that context it offers zero performance benefit.
Don't do video encoding, at least not in a long time, that was never on my mind moving along.


That was siad in response to this "RAID 0 is stripping so it performs better than having them run as separate normal drives. You should know that. "
My point, which escapes, you is that your statement is WRONG unless you state in what it gives "better performance".
 
Don't generalise just like that. Not to mention your "smart-ass" attitude above (which wasn't only noticed by me). None of this helps your case.




QUOTE  
Did you bench before raid0 mode so you could compare this "perceived improvement"?

"Yeah I did on a friend on mine whos system is identical, the "perceived" HD scores are higher on my configuration. His was at the time a single SATA drive. Moving along."


Was it an identical SATA drive? Assuming it is a fair comparison your response is stilled flawed since
Perceived speed can only be judged by actual usage of system and NOT synthetic scores. And even so youd have to test on YOUR system to be truly accurate since identical hardware doent make for identical benching environment.


QUOTE  
Contrary to popular belief RAID0 DOESN'T decrease hd access time. Nor will it speed up loading of games unless the game required gigs of data loaded AS FILES into memory.  


I never said it did, did I? (lets answer that NO) my access times are better by virtue of the specifications of the drives. This I know, hence why I CHOSE those drives over Samsung, or MAxtor etc. Moving along.

So what does loading times depend on mostly? BUt even if it was an unfair assumption on my part then how do you explain this:

"Did I mention I hate load times, the RAID config has decreased these in games like Farcry, Doom III, and I watch alot of anime all of which is on my HD."

A logical person would conclude from that, your saying clearly RAID is the reason for decreased load times. No where did you say it was the technical superiority of the drives (SATA vs IDE) by themselves. In any case this was all said to justify your use of RAID. No where did you mention anything about SATA drives (your pick) being technically superior to other drives.


QUOTE  
RAIDO primary benefit is to increase sequential xfer rate. Sequential xfer rates like in video capture. I should know because I used RAID0 mode for a year.


I guess I should have mentioned I don't have a TV in my room so I use my TVtuner card to do so and that now and then I DO capture video from G4TechTv and the like... so I guess THANKS for that point, I haven't done any captures since I changed the drives, but since ur year of experience says so I guess it must work better, i'll try and let u know. Moving along.

Dude it was merely a real world example. Again you miss the point. Besides, unless you capture losslessy and at high res a simple capture will NOT give high enough sequential rates to bother a single decent IDE drive. Which is what your doing is it not? And besides its a technical fact. Just a bonus I have real wolrd evidence to backup my claims as well.


QUOTE  
No, I don't believe you. Because any modern hd ide or sata can easy cope with USB and Optical max data rates.

#1 Your comparing an IDE drive to SATA?
#2 Your comparing older drive to new gen drive?

Those are two unforgivable errors in your comparison. No wonder you came to such a conclusions about benfits of RAID0.

Now if you compared a before raid0 to after using SAME SATA Drive that be a start...


I merely mentioned the USB drive as I was reffering to copying from my pen drive then moving them around on my various partitions as I have a tendancy to do every now and again when doing my organizing. And no crap i'd be comparing IDE to SATA I never said it was a fair comparison, though u said


What is the point in mentioning that fact then? I am saying copying data from drives like that doesn't prove anything related to raid since neither can exceed the xfer rates of even a normal hd.


QUOTE  
People tend to assume always newer/technically superior always equates to "better".

Well I guess the reply to that is YES this time newer is better, but anyways. Last I check ALL benchmarks are made as a comparison to OLDER/CURRENT technology as defacto standards so I think ur comment is a MOOT point. Moving along.

My point is that YOU believe RAID0 is automatically "better" as proven by your comments about your RAID experiences. For the benefit of non raid users I was pointing out that just because it is technically better in the real world for most it will not give a preceived improvement. It all depends on what you use it for and in what its "better" at.



QUOTE  
If your into benches and happy that it shows a theoretical increase thats your choice, but why do you bother posting if your not gonna defend yourself? Or post a childish response like "i dont give a damn what you think cause Im happy with myself" answer?


Well I didn't realise that there would be anyone childish enough to persue this matter as has occured here, but I guess u proved me wrong  , that aside I do like to run benchmarks. And as for defending myself, well again I didn't realise I would HAVE TO since u obviously expect me to (wah was that about childish something...).Moving along.

Speech is a gift not an excuse. Don't bother to comment if you can't back up what you say.



QUOTE  
One more thing I didn't expect but is a added bonus these damn drives format in like 10secs FLAT NO JOKE.


If u will CAREFULLY look at what exactly was said (being one who seems to LOVE to point out to other ppl when they misquote u) a benifit of the DRIVES not RAID, DRIVES.... that has nothing to do with the RAID. The formatting times are the same RAID or no, that comment was made towards the greater POST not YOU or RAID.

SO I requote your original post:
"One more thing I didn't expect but is a added bonus these damn drives format in like 10secs FLAT NO JOKE. I am a person who will prolly reinstall windows 2 times a year to keep things running as smoothly as I like so belive me that formatting time or LACK THERE OF is a blessing. "

DRIVES..note S. DRIVE(S) as in RAID. Since both are identical you would have said DRIVE or even SATA drive. My conclusion is correct based ON WHAT YOU SAID. If YOU made a mistake its not my fault.


"Moving along to something that doesn't take up so much of my time."

Whatever makes you happy.