SCSI performance, worth it?

[KillaKilla]

I was wondering how much faster 15K SCSI drives are than a Raptor on SATA?

All I would use it for is games and the... ummm... (What is the part of your HDD that the OS sees/uses as RAM when there isn't enough RAM present?). I was wondering if it would affect FPS noticably if I use 15K SCSI drive over a Raptor? I have a WD 80GB Special Edition

A64-3000+
512MB@433
9800Pro 128
K8T800-based MB

 

[WackyDan]

Increase performance? Yes. Noticeable? Maybe. More noise from Drive? Yes. More heat from drive? Yes.

You didn't mention if you were going to RAID multiple SCSI drives. I'll assume from the info given that you won't.

RAIDing IDE drives will give you the performance boost you may be looking for at a better price. Of course, a RAID introduces more noise and heat as well.

Look at the WD raptors. I'm sure many here will give you many differing viewpoints.... But I think I'm on target for the info you've given us to work with.

 

[Sunner]

Neither will affect FPS at all unless you're swapping, in which case it'll be unacceptably slow anyway.
Getting a faster HD will affect load times, for example maps, but that's it.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Neither will affect FPS at all unless you're swapping, in which case it'll be unacceptably slow anyway.
Getting a faster HD will affect load times, for example maps, but that's it.

A faster HDD to load maps, levels, music files, and cut scenes would be good enough by my standards to increase gaming performance.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

As I understand it, the newest 15k drives are pretty reasonably quiet (the seagates are a bit quieter?), and they put out a pretty normal amount of heat. Stick a slow fan on them and they should be fine (probably fine with no fan, but I usually put a fan my drives either way).

And yeah, the actual *playing* part of the game won't be faster, but anything that is hard drive-bound will be faster.

 

[zodder]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Sunner
Neither will affect FPS at all unless you're swapping, in which case it'll be unacceptably slow anyway.
Getting a faster HD will affect load times, for example maps, but that's it.

A faster HDD to load maps, levels, music files, and cut scenes would be good enough by my standards to increase gaming performance.

I hear ya. Games are getting pretty large and cut scenes and level loads are taking longer and longer to load.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Sunner
Neither will affect FPS at all unless you're swapping, in which case it'll be unacceptably slow anyway.
Getting a faster HD will affect load times, for example maps, but that's it.

A faster HDD to load maps, levels, music files, and cut scenes would be good enough by my standards to increase gaming performance.

Just as I said.
He however specifically asked about "FPS".

 

[DaveSimmons]

www.StorageReview.com -- the fastest 15k SCSI is only slightly faster than the 74 GB Raptor (6% I think).

Not worth it unless you already have a 9800XT, 1GB RAM, A64 3400+ and have preordered the successor to the 9800XT

 

[beatle]

SCSI isn't worth it for my $$. I'll stick to the Raptor. With unlimited funds, I'd probably go with SCSI.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
www.StorageReview.com -- the fastest 15k SCSI is only slightly faster than the 74 GB Raptor (6% I think).

Not worth it unless you already have a 9800XT, 1GB RAM, A64 3400+ and have preordered the successor to the 9800XT

You don't just measure hard drives with a single number; there are many factors to take into consideration.

 

[biostud]

You could take a look at AT front page 'news' or click on this link
But since you only have 512Mb Ram I would suggest another stick before going for a faster harddrive

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
www.StorageReview.com -- the fastest 15k SCSI is only slightly faster than the 74 GB Raptor (6% I think).

Not worth it unless you already have a 9800XT, 1GB RAM, A64 3400+ and have preordered the successor to the 9800XT

You don't just measure hard drives with a single number; there are many factors to take into consideration.

Agreed, but I wasn't making a general statement for all applications, just in the specific context of gaming performance.

 

[Markfw]

Its a matter of money. SCSI is better and more exspensive. Decide what you want to spend, and go from there. With all of my SCSI setups, I may go raid0 74 gig raptors next time.

 

[charlie21]

Quoted from Storagereview's review of the Raptor:

"Overall, for non-server use, Western Digital's Raptor WD740GD is the fastest single hard disk one can buy regardless of spindle speed, interface, or price."

Pretty clear cut. If you go on to read the benchmarks, SCSI still rules in a multi-user environment, but that's not what you're going to be using the drive for.

 

[Monoman]

Hey Mark, if you decide to sell the RAID controller, Give me a shout.


as for benchmark numbers? IMO they mean as much as 3DMark03. how much faster it "FEELS" faster is due to the access times, NOT THE MB/S. Ask mark, he gets ofer 115MB/S with his SCSI RAID and it doesn't "feel" faster than My 15k drive... Folks here are to worried about numbers. Just try and it if it feels faster then it's faster TO YOU maybe not with numbers.


As to the OP, 15K scsi will "FEEL" faster everytime when compaired to IDE and I will say even a RAPTOR. This is due the the access times.

 

[Zepper]

Actually SCSI isn't anywhere near as expensive as it used to be. The excellent LSI U160 host adapter is only ~ $40. and there are a plethora of 10k drives for under $100. each. I got one of mine for $21.! Show me the SATA PCI adapter that you can hook 15 drives to...
Here is a source of info: www.scsifaq.org .

Here are some good SCSI vendors:

hypermicro.com (may offer free ground shipping if you mention www.storagereview.com - check the SR site for the latest offer)
centrix-intl.com
pc-pitstop.com
scsi4me.com (offers PayPal as a payment option)
and I can usually find stuff for low bucks on eBay.

.bh.

 

[spclwpns]

Hey big thanks for the info. 1 question though is in your view, how much faster would your suggestion be over a Raptor ?
Cause I have no idea, but have to ask

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Monoman
Hey Mark, if you decide to sell the RAID controller, Give me a shout.


as for benchmark numbers? IMO they mean as much as 3DMark03. how much faster it "FEELS" faster is due to the access times, NOT THE MB/S. Ask mark, he gets ofer 115MB/S with his SCSI RAID and it doesn't "feel" faster than My 15k drive... Folks here are to worried about numbers. Just try and it if it feels faster then it's faster TO YOU maybe not with numbers.


As to the OP, 15K scsi will "FEEL" faster everytime when compaired to IDE and I will say even a RAPTOR. This is due the the access times.

And with my 5 drive array, I get benchmarks of 1.1 ms average seek time.........

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Those $20 10k scsi drives are usually pretty old and slower than a modern 7200rpm drive (faster access times though), and also pretty hot (not warm, HOT), and loud.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Monoman
Hey Mark, if you decide to sell the RAID controller, Give me a shout.


as for benchmark numbers? IMO they mean as much as 3DMark03. how much faster it "FEELS" faster is due to the access times, NOT THE MB/S. Ask mark, he gets ofer 115MB/S with his SCSI RAID and it doesn't "feel" faster than My 15k drive... Folks here are to worried about numbers. Just try and it if it feels faster then it's faster TO YOU maybe not with numbers.


As to the OP, 15K scsi will "FEEL" faster everytime when compaired to IDE and I will say even a RAPTOR. This is due the the access times.

And with my 5 drive array, I get benchmarks of 1.1 ms average seek time.........

Which are obviously bogus results. If it really was that fast you would notice a huge difference.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Monoman
Hey Mark, if you decide to sell the RAID controller, Give me a shout.


as for benchmark numbers? IMO they mean as much as 3DMark03. how much faster it "FEELS" faster is due to the access times, NOT THE MB/S. Ask mark, he gets ofer 115MB/S with his SCSI RAID and it doesn't "feel" faster than My 15k drive... Folks here are to worried about numbers. Just try and it if it feels faster then it's faster TO YOU maybe not with numbers.


As to the OP, 15K scsi will "FEEL" faster everytime when compaired to IDE and I will say even a RAPTOR. This is due the the access times.

And with my 5 drive array, I get benchmarks of 1.1 ms average seek time.........

Which are obviously bogus results. If it really was that fast you would notice a huge difference.

I do notice a huge difference. Where did I say I didn't ? I installed Windows XP professions SP1 in 4 minutes as one example.

 

[sharkeeper]

Which are obviously bogus results. If it really was that fast you would notice a huge difference.

This is NOT bogus.

Totally eats any drive for lunch and throws the rest of the machine under the bus!

All it takes is a PCI-X HBA with fast processor with cache and properly set up rules, PCI-X 133 capable mainboard and a few U320 drives to play.

Cheers!

 

[Xab]

I prefer my SCSI drive to any RAID array simply because of reliability. I had a RAID array back in the day (pre-Raptor granted) and I have never had to RMA hard drives like that before. The RAID may grant you a good performance boost but it also greatly increases the chance of a problem since the data is being written to two drives simultaneously as opposed to one. So unless you don't really care about reliability or mind having to constantly RMA shot drives, I suggest going with SCSI.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Xab
I prefer my SCSI drive to any RAID array simply because of reliability. I had a RAID array back in the day (pre-Raptor granted) and I have never had to RMA hard drives like that before. The RAID may grant you a good performance boost but it also greatly increases the chance of a problem since the data is being written to two drives simultaneously as opposed to one. So unless you don't really care about reliability or mind having to constantly RMA shot drives, I suggest going with SCSI.

SCSI raid5 better than raid 0 or raid 1 or raid 10.... Ask Shuttleteam.. I have one.

 

[Pariah]

Unless that is a solid state drive shuttle, the access time benchmark is bogus. Pure and simple. RAID does not shrink platters or increase the speed of the read heads, so it cannot improve access time benchmarks which test the entire surface of the drives. It can improve access time over a given capacity, but it cannot improve access time over the entire array.