• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Wolfram

  • Rank
  1. Sorry, can't seem to edit my last post anymore, here's the comparison with the 36GB-Raptor.
  2. If you care for loading times in games, more RAM may indeed be the way to go. I remember older reviews from times when 2GB RAM were no benefit for games in general (except for MMORPGs like SWG), but loading times improved across the board, though sometimes by a small margin. I can't remember any recent tests on this, so I don't know if 4GB would give you a benefit now (maybe only on Vista64?). For the paging file, it may theoretically give you benefits to put it on a second drive, but I doubt they are noticeable, especially not in games/loading times. There is always some paging, true, but as long as you have enough RAM, it won't hurt. If you put the paging file on a second drive, it would have to be at least as fast as the first drive. The old raptors are slower than the new WD drives, so I wouldn't consider using them at all. A 250GB/platter WD SE16 already beats even the best variety of the 74GB raptor, which was noticeably faster than the 36GB model, and the 6400AAKS' perfomance (320GB/platter) should be better and match the Samsung F1 1TB or even the WD 1001 1TB (which are in the database, the 6400AAKS is not): SR-Comparison. Bottom line: Go with one 6400AAKS. Plus some RAM, if you need it.
  3. If you do video or audio editing with big files, a second drive might be useful for temporary files and copy operations. For everything else, I would go for a single drive.
  4. Found some information from Hitachi: http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/pages/main Choose a drive, select the "specification" document (not available for all drives) and you'll find the information under 4.2. For the 7K1000 it's 145.000 (1TB model) or 135.000 (500 and 750GB models) track per inch. These are 200GB-Platter drives, so for the lastest up-to-334GB/platter models by Samsung and WD, the track density probably has increased a litte.
  5. Hi all, does anyone know how many tracks a modern harddrive has? Seagate and WD tell us the number of sectors on their drives, but no word on the tracks. Regards, Wolfram
  6. It was on SPCR where I had seen the difference in power consumption with AAM turned on and off: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article244-page3.html The difference between seeks with AAM turned on and off is about the same as the difference between idle and seeks with AAM.
  7. AFAIK the power consumption in seek mode is significantly higher when AAM ist turned off, especially on Maxtor drives, IIRC. So I think you should consider this. I appreciate the idea of power consumption measurements. And I think idle/seek measurements are more important to most readers than the spinup power consumption. Anyone who uses large drives arrays should be able to afford a decent controller that can stagger the spinup of the drives. With a lot of drives spinnung up at the same time, I think you could beat any conventional PSU.
  8. Wolfram

    New Seagate HDD but health status low

    Seagate's SMART values are in fact more useful than those of other manufacturers. "Read" and "Seek Error Rate" are being counted before the first error correction stage on Seagate drives. So you can better track if a drive's condition is worsening rapidly or not. Other manufacturers count those errors after the first stage, but there useually is nothing to count anymore. So SMART says zero errors, but in fact that is no useable information.
  9. Why are only reviewed drives listed in the storagereview reliability database? Wouldn't the survey be even more useful if other drives were included as well? For me, that would be valuable information, especially because the are drives noone ever seems to review (like Exelstore drives). Only half of the drives in my PCs are included in the survey: Seagate Cheetah 15k.3 18GB, Seagate Barracuda IV 80GB, Hitachi 7K250 160GB Not included: Samsung V80 120GB, Seagate Barracuda 5400.1, Seagate U7 60GB
  10. Wolfram

    BIG tower vs MIDI tower

    One disadvantage of big towers is that you may need IDE/PATA cables that are longer than the specification allows.
  11. I have a similar issue with a Cheetah 15k.3 on an Adaptec 29160 on an Abit BP6 (Intel BX). HDtach reports a maximum transfer rate of ~60 MB/s, and the burst rate is limited to that value as well. For an IDE drive (Samsung SV1203N) on the onboard HPT366 I get a burst rate of only 50MB/s. Checked the results for the Cheetah with and without the additional IDE drive, same thing. The Cheetah is the only drive attached to the 29160. The cable is a twisted-pair cable by Amphenol (at least is has the brand name on the terminator and on all conecctors) with four connectors. The terminator is part no. 497330001 and says explicitly "SCSI LVD/SE". The cable is connected to the plug that's closer to the slot bracket, which should be the LVD segment. I was already told that the drive might be running in U2W mode. The Adaptec BIOS says "160", but you say that doesn't have to be true. So what can I do? Drivers are up to date now (Windows 2000 SP4), but I could try a newer BIOS for the 29160 or a different BIOS for the BP6, but I don't like to flash if I don't have to. Could it be problem with my slightly underclocked PCI bus (FSB 95 Mhz)? Or are there known issues with this 64bit PCI-card in a 32bit-PCI-slot?
  12. Wolfram

    7K250! Click of death?

    I second that. On one of my PCs, Windows 2000 used to hang now and then, maybe once in a week. Thought it might be the capacitors on the board (Abit BP6) or something driver related. Finally I opened the case when the system hung again, and found the harddisk wasn't spinning. Touched the power cable, the drive started. Fixed the power cable -> not a single freeze after that.
  13. People have reported problems with data corruption from 686B southbridges even on systems without the infamous SBLive, though this card seems to put an exceptional high load on the PCI bus. Capture cards also use a lot of PCI bus bandwith. That might mean trouble.
  14. h2benchw: interface speed test with block size 128 sectors (64.0 KByte): sequential read rate medium (w/out delay): 64.4 MByte/s sequential transfer rate w/ read-ahead (delay: 1.07 ms): 63.8 MByte/s Repetitive sequential read ("core test"): 61.0 MByte/s
  15. So you have only tried capturing uncompressed video? What harddisk is in that system? For uncompressed video, an old harddisk might be the bottleneck. I use (like most people) VirtualDub for occasional video capturing. You can use it with a lot of different codecs and compression settings, but it's not too difficult to handle. Check it out!