McAfee

[gyrene81]

Compare a small older consumer harddrive with a new Tb drive and yes the Tb drive is loads faster while providing many times the Mb per dollar.

So where were we again? A new Tb drive will wipe the floor with a lower capacity consumer drive.

Uh see you keep shooting yourself in the foot Ripley...yes, an old 5400rpm 80GB IDE drive will not load as fast as a 7200rpm 1TB SATA3.0GB drive. But you can have a smaller drive perform as well if not better if the proper technologies are combined. You cannot exclude anything here because your original statement specifically said "SIZE IS EVERYTHING"...nothing about rpm speed, cache size, connection type, etc...


Again, it has little to do with capacity, it's the other technologies...othewise if it existed a 1TB 5400rpm IDE drive would be just as good as a 1TB 7200rpm SATA...and regardless of whether or not you discount the raptors and the other drive types for whatever reason, the proof is in the pudding. And I guarantee you, if you stick that 1TB SATA3.0GB drive on a SATA1 connection, those "benchmarks" you put so much stock in won't be there.

The BIG PICTURE Ripley...it's all about the BIG PICTURE.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Read the tomshardware review where the 1Tb 5400rpm had double the performance of a smaller 7200rpm drive.

I guess you haven't followed up on many performance tests lately if you still need to disagree that larger disks equal higher performance if all other things are comparable, especially price/volume ratio.

I have not yet seen a review where a non-ssd drive wouldn't scale up in speed with size. Even the touted raptor is astronomically faster as 300gb version compared to the smaller one.

[Skuzzy]

It is not the size of the drive, per se.  It is the areal density that controls the absolute performance rates of drives.  As it turns out, most higher capacity drives have higher areal densities.

Areal density performance can be augmented with higher rotational rates, or higher rotational rates can be used to shore up a low areal density.

It is all about how fast you can get a bit of data under the head of the drive.  The two ways to accomplish this is higher areal densities and the second is higher rotational rates.  That is for sequential data.

[gyrene81]

Spot on Skuzzy... 


Ripley...if I paid as much attention to Toms hardware as many people do, I would still be paying attention to what PC Magazine and Maximum PC have to say. But I learned a long time ago that what is done in benchmark testing can be manipulated to show pretty much whatever is wanted.

Amazing how every other "test/review" show the average read/write transfer times on those Samsung "green" drives to be slightly slower than 500GB Seagate Barracudas. And not one review outside Toms Hardware showed "double performance" in any factor...guess it depends on what they use for benchmarks.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Spot on Skuzzy...  

Umm sorry but Skuzzy just verified my point.

It is not the size of the drive, per se.  It is the areal density that controls the absolute performance rates of drives.  As it turns out, most higher capacity drives have higher areal densities.

Please note I never stated anything otherwise. The rising trend of size/performance is indeed through advances in densities and larger caches among other technological advancements in the new drives.

 A drive with similar characteristics and larger data volume (meaning usually higher density) gives out more performance. As what goes for that article at Tom's they compared the new large drive to an older generation smaller disk. An example very similar to the situation of the OP and they stated it clearly.

Can't believe it's still even under debate. I'm quite amused by gyrene's condescending story about higher rpm drives etc. when in fact they have nothing to do in my example of getting a great price/performance and great volume/price ratio addition to the system.

As what goes for your worry about aging sata 1 spec ports on his motherboard I suggest reading the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

As of April 2009 mechanical hard disk drives can transfer data at up to 131 MB/s,[8] which is within the capabilities of the older PATA/133 specification. However, high-performance flash drives can transfer data at up to 201 MB/s.[9] SATA 1.5 Gbit/s does not provide sufficient throughput for these drives.

The new Tb drives are almost all about benefits with a little penalty in seek times and once volume per dollar ratio is taken into account there's just no question what the choice should be for anyone but the most hardcore enthusiasts.

My point stands: A full reinstall is an excellent opportunity to get a new large low dollar/gigabyte drive that blows away the existing drive in performance.

[gyrene81]

Ripley...for some reason I feel like I'm trying to explain a blinding paradigm to you.

You just keep tossing those big hard drives into systems and partitioning them to your hearts content. 

[Masherbrum]

Ripley...for some reason I feel like I'm trying to explain a blinding paradigm to you.

You just keep tossing those big hard drives into systems and partitioning them to your hearts content. 

um.....you have been echoing his points in a different way.   Just figured I'd throw that out there.   

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Ripley...for some reason I feel like I'm trying to explain a blinding paradigm to you.

You just keep tossing those big hard drives into systems and partitioning them to your hearts content.  

Gyrene please, you've been proved wrong on both of your false arguments (sata bandwith and higher performance of large disks) so give it a rest please.

Fact 1: You claim his older Sata1 channel will degrade a new Sata3 disk performance when in reality WD Black 1Tb 7200rpm SATA3.0 drive produces 85mb/s average, well within the 1.5Gbit/s bandwith of first generation SATA.

Fact 2: You claim higher size disks are in fact slower due to 'compression' etc. factors when in reality they're much faster due to higher data density, larger cache etc.


The BIG PICTURE you know..  

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Argh one beer and I'm already drunk. 

[gyrene81]

Argh one beer and I'm already drunk. 

Already? Now I'm jealous...must be 5 o'clock where you are or...well, like my dad use to say, "it's 5 o'clock somewhere". 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Already? Now I'm jealous...must be 5 o'clock where you are or...well, like my dad use to say, "it's 5 o'clock somewhere". 

A pint with food got to my head enough to press 'quote' when I meant to modify.