hi guys its a scci disk lot better than a 7200rpm 8mb buffer?

[memot]

a 1000 rpm scci hard drive?

[AllGamer]

10 000 rpm yes :)

1 000 rpm NO way in hell LOL :r

:t

[Steve R Jones]

SCSI SCSI

It's also many times more expensive..

[Swordfish]

1000 rpm SCSI slower than IDE:p

10000rpm SCSI faster than the concorder:r

ok i exaggerated a bit its slower than the concorde.

[AllGamer]

besides you are talking RPM vs KPH LOL :p

[Swordfish]

lol

besides concorde is going to rest for a while...so for time being SCSI wins the race:p

[Billforce]

I have both eide and 2 different scsi on this PC...I really can't notice a hill of beans difference between the two drives. The one thing I do notice a great deal of difference in, is the scsi card you are using. The new faster scsi cards are needed with the 10,000 rpm.

[genesound]

It depends on the particular drives in question really. If they're faster than the interface, that'll also make a difference. ;)

[sm8000]

Do you have a 10K SCSI disk on hand or can get one cheaply? If you're looking to buy, www.hypermicro.com still has a promotion on IBM 15K SCSI drives - use code SR-Z15 to get a free SCSI card :)

[Ankerson]

You will se the difference.

The only thing you will have to realise is that will will take a few sec longer to boot because of the SCSI bios. Other than that they are faster on ave than the IDE drives.

If you want real speed get the 15K SCSI.:D

[lptech]

memot-

Current SCSI HDDs are faster than their IDE counterparts because they have smarter interfaces that free up the CPU (there is less CPU utilization in a SCSI configured system vs. an IDE configured system)! This is specially true now that they've got the newer interface designed to run twice as fast (320 version vs. the 160 version)!

Personally, if I need to run my system really fast, then I would go with SCSI HDDs. That is if money is not an issue! What are you going to run that would require such high speeds/access times? SCSI is not for everyone, it depends on whether you feel that it is justifiable enough to go that route or not. Good luck.:)

LPTECH

[Holodoc]

well, ankerson....

you won't need to perk up your ears in this case :-)

[mpc2]

Get a WD IDE 10,000 rpm Raptor. You'll get near the performance of a 10,000 rpm SCSI, but without having to buy an expensive SCSI controller and without the price of a SCSI drive.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Holodoc
well, ankerson....

you won't need to perk up your ears in this case :-)


LOL...:D

[BipolarBill]

In a single-drive system, you won't see a huge performance difference between SCSI, the Raptor and even a WD JB PATA drive. Where you start saying "Wow!" is when you add a few SCSI drives to the chain.

SCSI is much more reliable in stressed conditions too.

[G]

Once you have gone the SCSI route you won’t go back to anything else.

I’m in the process of building a new system and it is SCSI based again. It’s going to cost but IDE can be infuriating slow.

There is also the added cost of a HBA too. Check out LSI Logic at

http://www.lsilogic.com/index.html

My new system, link below, is based around SCSI

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=138445

G

[lptech]

memot-

You really haven't stated what apps or programs you intend to run. Like I've said earlier, SCSI is not for everyone, cost constraints and other factors would be somewhat prohibitive, but it actually is the best choice if you plan on building a system for total high performance computing! What I meant was, if plan on doing things that are CPU intensive, it is the way to go since it won't be taxing your CPU as much as an IDE configured system would. Graphics intensive things like rendering and other related things would benefit from a SCSI setup.

I've setup many systems that are for such purposes as outlined above and the main thing that made them really run fast was the fact that they were all using SCSI configuration and not taxing the CPU/CPUs heavily (I've built many Dual-Processored Systems for heavy Graphics Applications)! So I'm speaking from standpoint of experience as far as using SCSI setups! I've also worked with server systems like DELL PowerEdge Servers with DUAL and QUAD Processors and SCSI RAID Arrays. Again, it is not for everybody but for special purpose setups. If you could state what your intended use would be, then it would clarify things more so that I could recommend which would be the a better choice between IDE or SCSI!

LPTECH

[Someone Stupid]

I'd have to agree with lptech and BipolarBill. I used to do plenty of 3D graphics work. SCSI helps there, very little to none in most everything else. For office apps, most consumer end software, and even games you won't notice much of a difference. The only time you'll notice a difference other than with heavy 3D work and a few other workstation apps (as that's essentially what these drives are, high end professional drives). In games I notice a decreased load time though I wouldn't pay the extra cash to drop a second or two of 5 to 7 seconds max. I only have SCSI drives in my current system as I yanked them from my old on. Have those RAIDed and actually run my OS of an 8mb WD IDE drive and dumped the whole OS into memory - even when not all in memory, having it grab from the IDE drive isn't a killer. If I was going back to graphics work I'd use SCSI all the way, but for the vast majority of people, SCSI isn't worth the investment unless you have plenty of cash. Your paying a lot more for a lot less space. Also running on the 32 bit PCI bus (single processor board) takes away some speed from it, but it is still faster. I wouldn't buy one or more now unless I had to for work, not just "wanted" performance.

The 8mb cache WD's offer great performance for the price and a good warranty. They start at 80 on up to 200 for sure on IDE. I use a 120 and it's surprisingly fast for an IDE drive.

[causticVapor]

I agree with SS and BPB... If you're getting into 3d rendering or have a server where extended drive life and reliability is key, SCSI is the only way to go. Also, high-end SCSI controllers have their own CPU, so lots of drives can be on a channel without eating up the main processor(s)' cycles.

A Maxtor Atlas 15K or Seagate 15k.3 series drive would work quite well for the high-end workstation system. Alternatively, you can get one of the drives with lower spindle speed and more space (near-200GB range), but it will still cost you ($1000 and up area)

Also, U320 drives' controllers are exceedingly expensive... get them in a motherboard if you can, and upgrade if you need more controller capacity.

A 2/4-way opteron motherboard with PCI-X (and soon PCI express) with built in U320 controllers will be the way of the future for the workstation/server.

For 1-way workstations (and those that need AGP Pro), definitely nForce3.

Unless intel develops something similar to HyperTransport, their Xeon will fall further and further behind, especially in multithreading performance.