sleepeeg3

Member
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About sleepeeg3

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Duluth, GA
  1. Yes, thanks Eugene for an amazing source of info. I have cited your reviews countless times. Hopefully you can recruit some other reviewers to take the burden off yourself, although they would have to duplicate your testbed. I wonder how SSDs will change the landscape of storage though. It really reduces the variables when you have millisecond access times and flat transfer rate speeds.
  2. sleepeeg3

    reliability database

    Any thought to adding this to the benchmark database? It is sort of cumbersome to route through as is to do estimates on drives. You could leave out drives that don't meet your sample size criteria, like you do in the reviews. Example, I was about to buy the Caviar 750GB SE16, based on the database, but the reviews on Newegg seem to show a disproportionate amount of hot running, short lived and DOA drives. Reliability database seems to back this up.
  3. sleepeeg3

    Raptor + NVidia G80 = Vista problems ?

    Maybe it is just Vista 32. If it was working in XP, MS needs to fix it.
  4. sleepeeg3

    Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000

    Exactly. Eugene I don't know if it is a fair statement to say the Deskstar 7K1000 is the fastest drive, when it has not been compared to the top scores put out by the Raptor with NCQ disabled. Most of us have probably seen firmware optimizations have varying impact depending on performance, depending on how they are implemented. The Raptor still beats it all but one test with NCQ disabled... http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark...48&devCnt=2
  5. sleepeeg3

    Next Generation Raptor?

    Eugene, you are a sly one... Waited for official press release: http://www.westerndigital.com/en/company/r...B-CE7FCAAFD1B3} Impressive, but somewhat disappointing. Smokes the competition in workstation apps, but server use is still abysmmal, noise is about the same and heat output is somewhat warmer.
  6. sleepeeg3

    Next Generation Raptor?

    Realise, the Fujitsu MAU is now well over a year old. By your comparison, you're not saying much. Believe it or not, your sarcasm does not make it any slower. It's still the fastest drive for desktop usage.
  7. sleepeeg3

    Next Generation Raptor?

    But would it really be faster than a Raptor? "Its SCSI therefore its faster" is quite an archaic belief. No, it wouldn't. I'll make a prediction right now the Raptor X is going to be named the fastest drive for single user usage, just like the original was. Totally agree. A single platter 150GB Raptor V3 will very likely top the MAU for single user performance.Now for enterprise use, well if the last model is anything to go by, WD has their work cut out for them...
  8. sleepeeg3

    nForce4 RAID5 - why does it suck?

    CPU usage?
  9. So the 74GB Raptor with no command queueing was 1.5% slower than the average? I must be screwing something up... Eugene, is there an archive for Testbed 3 or would it be possible to get some screenshots of past results? There have been a few times I have wanted to compare some drives not on the new testbed and it is hard to find that answer elsewhere. SR is such a definitive site on drive reviews, most sites let their storage section languish and it is hard to find good results elsewhere. For example, it would be nice to be able to give comparison advice to people upgrading from their $20-after-MIR WD drive. One comparison I really do miss being able to do, is the review on the venerable 15k.3. Not as fast as the newer 15k drives, but on Testbed 3 it held a substantial noise/heat advantage over the rest of the lineup. The 15k.4 was not a worthy successor to that drive. Incredible work as always! The straight-forwardness of SR is refreshing.
  10. sleepeeg3

    3 Gb/sec or 300 MB/sec?

    Aside from the fact that 3Gb/s is wrong, the general consumer can not tell the difference between a little "b" and a big "B." For the sanity of techs everywhere, please let them use 300MB/s! Naturally marketing will stick us with the former. On the other hand, I can understand why they used bits for the baud rate. 56K sounds a helluva lot cooler than .007MB/s!
  11. sleepeeg3

    Raptor is noisy. So noisy....

    ...an even better one is Control Panel -> System -> System Restore and click on "Turn off System Restore." That is guaranteed to make your drive seem fast. Seriously, how often does anyone use System Restore? Probably never. Half the time it doesn't even work and reinstalling is a guaranteed fix. So I guess Eugene added an "Edit" button, but it doesn't work? Shoot. (Edit me this...) ...or should I say "work all the time?"
  12. sleepeeg3

    Raptor is noisy. So noisy....

    Right click on the C: drive and unclick "Allow indexing service to slow this drive down for the search feature I almost never use."
  13. sleepeeg3

    LCD Monitors @ 12ms response time?

    If you did not read those articles (and you should read all of them) the cut of the jib is that the ISO standard states that the lowest response time attained throughout the entire color spectrum, can be used as the printed response time. In essence, it's absolutely meaningless. That is unless everything you do uses that one color! The fastest 16.7million colored-LCDs are still the discontinued HyDis models. Basically anything else claiming sub-20ms response times is only using 256 thousand colors. So if you want true color reproduction and fast game times, you have to wait for 1. The ISO standard to start using the average response time 2. PVA/MVA monitors to mature. It's a long ways off.
  14. sleepeeg3

    Wd Really Going Downhill

    If it were really .8% AFR, then the odds of Clevor getting 4/5 bad drives would be 0.000000004063232 or 124/30,517,578,125. He would be over a dozen times more likely to win the California lottery! No, I don't think so. 10%+ is more likely. All hard drive manufacturers are bound to have some bad drives. I've never used a WD, but I'm sure they are not much worse than the rest.
  15. sleepeeg3

    Seagate Savvio 36GB 20-Pack for $415.99?

    Economically, that would probably be worth suing them over...