Which HD would you pick?

[rf03]

I won't be upgrading any time soon and I'd like this system to be future-proof, but I'd also like to get the most bang for the buck & storage if possible. I'm just hung up on stuff like the different SATA's (150 & 3.0GB/s) and features like NCQ. I'll be running a dual-core X2 with 2 gigs of RAM & I'll be using this at home (not a server or anything), if that matters. Anyhow, here are the 3 options:

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD4000KD (400GB / SATA 150 / 16MB cache / no NCQ support) = $200
Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD3200KS (320GB / SATA 3.0 / 16mb cache / NCQ) = $150
Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 (300GB SATA150 / 8MB cache / NCQ) = $131

And, both short and long term, do features like NCQ and SATA 3.0 matter?

 

[rf03]

hate to bump this, but I'd love the insight here since I'm gonna decide on one soon.

is SATA 3.0 a pointless spec since HD's don't even reach that speed? 16mb cache & NCQ important?

 

[Pyrokinetic]

SATA 3.0 isn't a big deal at this time because no SATA drive even comes close to overwhelming 1.5. NCQ however, is a cool feature because it allows 7200rpm drives to near match 10,000rpm raptors in data speed. Best I can explain it is that while the raptors handle the data faster, the NCQ drives handle it more efficiently. Kind of like the maxim 'work smarter not harder.'

I currently have two raptors in a RAID 0 configuration -which is very fast indeed- but if I were building a new system, I think I would go for a RAID 0 with two 7200rpm NCQ drives. They wouldn't be quite as fast as the raptors, but would be close and probably alot quieter and cooler.

Lastly, the bigger the cache, the better; so yeah, go for the 16mb.

 

[Some1ne]

I would do the 16 MB cache, NCQ drive.

 

[Budman]

Seagate.

 

[TigersHere]

the raid HD in a desktop. I thought it was not meant for that or do they always say that, lol
is a controller needed for the NCQ ?
i read a little about it and said forget it when i read it was for 'servers'......so enlighten me as i am a day from buying one of these drives....or two

 

[Pyrokinetic]

There are different types of RAID. RAID 0 takes two drives and combines them into one drive. Servers generally use RAID 1 (or 3,5,ect.) to preserve data by writing the same data to two seperate disks, thus if one fails, the data is still there on the backup drive. Most performance users use RAID 0 for the speed, and most motherboards with at least 2 SATA interfaces can do RAID 0 and 1 (but check and make sure). NCQ is found on newer motherboards or RAID add-in cards (usually PCI interface), and is built in so I am not sure what you mean when you say 'controller.' You just need an NCQ capable motherboard (or add-in card) and NCQ capable drives.

 

[KutterMax]

I just replaced two 36GB Raptors in a RAID-0 configuration with a WD Caviar SE16 WD4000KD 400GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive - OEM.

The reason I switched is that I wanted the additional storage space and the 400GB WD was available for $179 (after $20 rebate) and this was hard to pass up.

Subjectively, I find the WD as fast or faster than the two Raptors were. The OS boots extremely quickly and program loading is also very fast. One small bonus, the WD is quieter than the two Raptors were.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I'd picl the 320 personally, its the best bang for buck IMHO

 

[CraigRT]

I'd either get the WD 16MB drive, or wait for the Seagate 7200.9... Some of the sizes of the 7200.9 were not out last time I was looking into getting one, perhaps they are all available now.

 

[Blain]

I would buy the WD RE2.

 

[imported_rod]

For performance, 16MB cache will give you the best performance increase. NCQ will also help, although if you de-frag regularly, the increase will be fairly small.

Also, drives with a larger capacity will be slightly faster, due to the larger number of sectors that will pass the head in each revolution.

RoD

EDIT: Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD3200KS (320GB / SATA 3.0 / 16mb cache / NCQ) = $150

 

[sniperruff]

whichever as the longest warranty.

 

[zest]

Mega roundup/benchmarkks..performance...interactive.....


http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html

 

[iamtorax]

I like Seagate because of their five year warranty.

 

[GamerExpress]

Originally posted by: Some1ne
I would do the 16 MB cache, NCQ drive.

Why would you do that???

I would just go with the Seagate dude.

 

[rf03]

A few questions:

1) Are Seagates truly more reliable than Western Digitals?

2) Also, I've heard that WD's are pretty quiet lately. Are Seagates quieter?

 

[NYTRIDR]

the 320 WD is a very nice drive. best ive seen so far.

 

[rf03]

Okay, I think Im going for the 320 WD. Just before I buy:

Do you guys think Western Digitals are reliable?

 

[NYTRIDR]

i have been running WD for more than 5 years. ive had 2 fail on me in over 500 bought and installed.