KingGremlin

Member
  • Content Count

    363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KingGremlin

  1. Hey Eugene, I saw this on another forum and was wondering if you could confirm or deny this: "THe WD actually has 34 GB more than the seagate because of the way they measure their drives. (WD = 750,000 MB = formatted 732 GB, Seagate 750,000,000,000 B = 698 GB formatted) This data has been confirmed by WD's and Seagates spec sheets." WD's website does in fact list the capacity as 750,156 MB, so what are the formatted capacities of these two drives?
  2. KingGremlin

    Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000

    Wow, this drive is so fast, it sent Eugene into the future! Seriously though, nice drive. I know what the benchmarks say, but do you think this drive would really be faster than the Raptor in "real world" computers. ie... ones that aren't run off a clean image every time you boot up? Imagine one of these about half full with a typical amount of fragmentation for a home user, and I picture a drive that won't come close to the results it posted in this review. Obviously the Raptor would suffer performance degradation as well, but one would think it would be to a lower degree. Any thoughts?
  3. KingGremlin

    Where, oh where, are the Terabyte drives

    Assuming their website is accurate (people have reported getting drives from them), CDW has had them in stock for a while. http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.asp...mp;platform=all
  4. Reported availability this quarter. Time will tell. It doesn't appear you can link to pages within Hitachi's site, so here is the front page which has links all over about the drive. http://www.hitachigst.com
  5. It appears that Raptors are entering an EOL phase. BestBuy has slashed prices on them significantly. I just picked up a 150GB Raptor X for $169.99, and there are reports of the 74GB Raptor selling for as little as $101, though $110 is more typical. By comparison, Newegg is selling the Raptor X for $200, which includes a $30 mail-in rebate.
  6. KingGremlin

    15k.5 numbers posted

    The performance database has 15k.5 numbers posted now. Despite incredible low level performance, workstation performance is terrible. Eugene sure wasn't lying there. Is this the second sample, Eugene? Multi-user performance is pretty good, but certainly nothing exceptional when considering how tanked the single user performance is. Hopefully this is just a firmware issue that will be fixed before the drive reaches market.
  7. KingGremlin

    15k.5 numbers posted

    Yes, lowlevel performance has been downplayed for a while now, but there should still be a limit to how little performance a drive manufacturer can pull out of the raw numbers a drive can produce. You can't judge the performance of a car simply by looking at HP numbers, but if a car has 400HP and records a 0-60 time of 11 seconds, people are going to be left scratching their head thinking what on earth did the engineers do to mess up the potential of that car so much? Absolute difference? Not much. However, if it's 45% better than the previous leader, with the 3rd fastest access time measurement to date, I certainly expect relative performance that is better than 40-60% slower than the previous generation competition in workstation performance which supposedly stresses localized access patterns which should benefit from the extreme STR numbers. This drive lost 4 out of 5 single user marks to the 250GB Samsung Spinpoint 120 (14.3ms, 71.3MB/s-41.5MB/s). I don't care how much you want to minimize the impact of lowlevel performance, that's embarrassing. No wonder Seagate bought Maxtor. Give this drive to Maxtor or Fujitsu engineers I bet they would have extracted significantly better performance out of it. Is this drive going to have a desktop and server mode like the 15k.4?
  8. KingGremlin

    Any 15k.5 numbers yet?

    SR posted a month ago that the Cheetah 15K.5 was on the testbed being put through its paces. Are there any preliminary numbers to post yet? I know this is a stupid question, but any clue as to when these will be available for purchase? The impending Conroe has me looking to overhaul my system for the first time in years quite soon. If the 15k.5 can put a hurting on the Raptor, I'd probably wait, otherwise I'm sure I could save quite a bit of cash getting rid of SCSI and using onboard SATA.
  9. KingGremlin

    Any 15k.5 numbers yet?

    Thank you very much for the update, Eugene. I found in another thread that Seagate says these drives won't be in the distribution channels until October 6th. So much for "late second quarter."
  10. That's a pretty impressive 50% increase over the current largest drive. Too bad it's Seagate. The race is now on to see what will happen first, the first working Star Trek transporter is demonstrated, or one of these drives is seen for sale somewhere. It's a PDF file as there is no web page for it yet: http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/...uda_7200_10.pdf
  11. KingGremlin

    Can't we restructure this forum?

    I don't mean to offend you by this, but I find it ironic that someone is complaining about the organization and clarity of this forum by posting a giant one run-on sentence post that itself is difficult to decipher. I agree with the others, this site doesn't get enough traffic to warrant splitting up the categories. The SEARCH feature is your friend.
  12. KingGremlin

    Cheetah 15K.5 announced

    Whoaa... Slow down there slugger. You appear to have missed that this was Seagate making the announcement. Though the release says they will be shipping later this quarter, don't be deceived. While most companies would mean the April-May-June quarter, Seagate is referring to the first quarter of this century, so we should expect it in volume by the year 2025.
  13. KingGremlin

    Raptor 150 doubter

    It's in your head. With no direct comparison, and no hard numbers, just going by it feels faster than a slower model is about as poor a comprison as you can come up with. If there was any real difference, the 128MB caching controller is almost certainly the reason. SR did test a SAS version of the 15k.4 I believe, and there was no real difference between it and the P-SCSI version. Or maybe I'm remembering something that didn't happen, since I can't find the article. And in a related story, 100% of people regardless of age who died in a car accident last year, had never had a fatal accident before. Past successes are not an indication of future successes.
  14. KingGremlin

    New 150GB Raptor Versus...

    Drive is now available at Newegg for $300. $295 + $5 shipping.
  15. I know this has been mentioned in that other Raptor thread, but since it is buried on page 5 which most people will probably never get to, I figured it should get a new thread now that it appears a real product with specs has surfaced. Western Digital Raptor WD1500AD Nothing to be found on WD's site yet, so public availability may still be a long way off, but at least it appears the sequel is finally a reality.
  16. KingGremlin

    150GB Raptor appears on the horizon

    One more tragically poorly translated link: A WD Raptor of 150 Go! Announcement will reportedly be on Jan 3rd.
  17. KingGremlin

    7K100: Are they available?

    ZZF still has the 7200.1's listed, though they are out of stock. For some reason they are listed under 7200RPM IDE instead of mobile. However, both the 80GB and 100GB versions that are listed are $299. You'd have to be retarded to spend that much on one of those. Especially when the Hitachi 80GB drive is $80 cheaper at ZZF, and $30 cheaper than the link above.
  18. KingGremlin

    7K100: Are they available?

    Last time I looked, ZipZoomFly had the lower capacities available (60GB/80GB).
  19. Hey Eugene, Would you mind simply listing what applications comprise this suite? It seems in general, the new test bed and suite brought the drives closer to each other, as the fastest drives generally did weaker while the slower drives did better relative to each other. That might be caused by the updated hardware more than the benchmarks, as the updated hardware with more RAM I would assume may contribute to minimizing the impact that hard drives have on overall performance thus slower drives don't hurt overall performance as much, while faster drives aren't utilized as much to display their superior abilities. (Edit by Eugene- KG is actually referring to a graph that was briefly posted but that didn not represent the change in results for this test (it actually represented the change in the high-end test, results of which are going to be posted soon). The correct "change between 2002 and 2006" graph is now posted. Sorry about that, KG... I'm demonstrating right here why posts should not be edited after the fact- they create race conditions /edit) Also, Seagate's SCSI division should be embarassed by those results. I understand that the drives are targetted for servers, but if you are going to have a "desktop performance" mode, it should not be equal to your 7200RPM ATA counterpart which isn't exactly a performance king by ATA standards itself. When compared to Fujitsu's and Maxtor's offerings, there are really no excuses for abysmal results like those. Note #2, avoid TCQ like the plague if you own a Raptor and don't run a server. What a beating it takes when you enable it. The very close proximity of Maxtor's 15k and 10k offernings is rather odd as well. Difficult to say whether the 15k II is a disappointment despite still coming in 2nd, or whether the 10k V is simply that good since it put a beating on second place Fujitsu.
  20. KingGremlin

    Measuring STR

    I doubt such a utility exists or someone would have brought it up by now. I've used basically all the major video editing suites (Premiere, Liquid, Vegas, Media Studio, Xpress), and none of them contain such a utility. You're probably going to get stuck with Winbench for reads, and have to make some concessions for a write tool.
  21. What's going on with the hard drive industry recently? This article is a bit old, yet it seems to have slipped by everyone's attention including the companies in the industry: SATA II...I Mean SATA-300...I Mean... "“Hitachi announces 500GB SATA II drive†reads one headline in the AnandTech forums, a proclamation backed up by Hitachi’s own release of the drive stating that it boasts a “complete set of SATA II features.†One eWeek article is titled “SATA II Features Make a Mark at IDFâ€. Addonics currently sells a SATA II PCI-X RAID controller, and LSI’s MegaRAID SATA 300-8X is billed as an “eight-port SATA II RAID storage adapter.†There’s only one problem with all of these items: There’s no such thing as SATA II. “There is no set of specs for ‘SATA II,’†says Joe Cousins, vice president of marketing for Bell Microproducts, which sells high volumes of every hard drive brand save Samsung. “There’s nothing that says, ‘If you have all these things in your drive, it’s SATA II.’ Different companies are adding new SATA features at different rates. Like Seagate added hot swappability and NCQ to their drives in the last few months when others did not. But that wasn’t considered SATA II, just an extension of the current SATA. So when a customer calls and asks if you have a SATA II drive, it really doesn’t specify anything.†Originally, there was an official SATA II committee, but it was disbanded and reformed as the Serial ATA International Organization (SATA-IO). The old committee defined several features, and these went on to become the presumed feature list for a SATA 2.0 spec that never materialized. Still, the SATA II name stuck. The top four features for “SATA II†are native command queuing (NCQ), hot swappable plugging, staggered spin-up (spinning up only one drive in a multi-drive configuration), and a 3 Gb/sec (300 MB/sec) transfer rate. According to Cousins, Seagate maintains that there is no such thing as SATA II, just as there was no PATA I versus PATA II, and even sent out memos discouraging people from using the moniker. Others are obviously less conservative. “I’ll read you this thing I got from Maxtor,†says Cousins. “It reads, ‘SATA II is the basic serial interface with any of the additional features or extensions that have been defined in the SATA spec.’ Things like 300 MB/sec are part of the SATA spec. So it’s confusing.†With each passing week, 300 MB/sec is becoming synonymous with SATA II, yet even the SATA-IO notes on its site, “The term SATA II has grown in popularity as the moniker for the SATA 3Gb/s data transfer rate, causing great confusion with customers because, quite simply, it’s a misnomer.†All of the “SATA II†features are merely extensions of today’s SATA spec. This is important because two customers could request SATA II products yet expect—and receive—completely different things. Especially in business environments where adherence to IT requirements or bid specifications is critical, make sure you get your terms right, and if someone requests SATA II, spell out the features they need, not the moniker du jour." So, basically, there is no SATA 2.0 spec, and there never will be since the organization that was putting it together no longer exists. Yet, everywhere you look now, HD manufacturers are advertising SATA II drives. And not surprisingly, they all have different feature sets. Seagate appears to have the most complete feature set, while WD doesn't even advertise NCQ support in their recently announced SATA II drives. Wasn't that a fundamental feature that basically everyone assumed would be required for SATA II when it was still being developed? Of course none of these companies can be wrong, since there is no SATA II, they can basically name their own feature set and call it whatever they want. What kind of farse is that? Is SR planning on posting an article clearing up what is going on with SATA and if there will ever be an official 2nd generation SATA spec? I'm going to puke at the first mention of "Enhanced SATA" out of WD or any other made up new specification from someone else.
  22. KingGremlin

    SATA II, the interface that's everywhere

    No, 3Gb/s SATA is equivalent to the nonexistent standards you listed above. SATA II was supposed to be a collection of features, not just a speed bump. No, they aren't. That's what you aren't getting. First off, TCQ is not a part of SATA, never was, never will be, so don't see why you listed that one. Western Digital's new "SATA II" drives do NOT support NCQ, and no one but Seagate seems to have "real" hot-plugging. The only feature all the companies seem to have in common is the 3Gb/s interface speed boost. There was a certain basic feature set that everyone was familiar with and assumed was going to make it into SATA II. Now that SATA II has collapsed, companies are releasing SATA II products that do not include all the features we thought we were going to get. So if you buy a drive assuming a basic feature set, unless you buy a Seagate drive, you're not going to be getting what you thought you were getting. No, there isn't. Even the official SATA website says there is no such thing as SATA II and not to use the terminology. Here is Seagate's recent paper launch 7200.9 press release: SEAGATE POWERS WORLD'S MOST POPULAR PC HARD DRIVE WITH HALF-TERABYTE AND FASTER 3 GBIT/S SERIAL ATA INTERFACE; Notice that SATA II is not mentioned once in the release. Why not? From the article I originally posted above: "According to Cousins, Seagate maintains that there is no such thing as SATA II," So Seagate says there is no SATA II and never uses the term for any of their products. Yet you know the spec? Might want to shoot an email over to Seagate and let them know it's posted on the SATA-IO website.
  23. Seagate is the next one up with a paper launch list of drives, including Firewire800 drives: SEAGATE POWERS WORLD'S MOST POPULAR PC HARD DRIVE WITH HALF-TERABYTE AND FASTER 3 GBIT/S SERIAL ATA INTERFACE; INTRODUCES FASTER, HIGHER CAPACITY EXTERNAL AND PORTABLE DRIVES
  24. KingGremlin

    Maxtor 500Gb in Q3.

    Indeed, that is why I expect Maxtor will rival Seagate's recent policies with respect to the amount of time that passes between announcement and availability. 207359[/snapback] Bingo, let the race of who can miss their announced ship date by the most begin. Unfortunately for Maxtor, Hitachi has a huge lead already. It's been so long since Hitachi announced their 500GB drive that everyone here has apparently forgotten. Hey, remember me? I'm only 3 months late so far... "Hitachi is currently shipping the Deskstar 7K80 and expects to begin shipping the Deskstar T7K250 and Deskstar 7K500 in Q1 2005." Good luck Maxtor, but you got a long way to go to catch Hitachi before your drive is as late as Hitachi's. Not to mention you are eons behind catching Seagate for the current worst time to market with their still unseen 7200RPM laptop drive. Don't let us down Maxtor, and release this drive before Q2 2006, you might cause a tear in the space-time continuum if you do.
  25. KingGremlin

    Apple to Ditch IBM

    Isn't the fastest Pentium M more expensive than the entire Mac Mini? 207072[/snapback] Is that the most intelligent response you could come up with? The transition is a year off, prices will fall. No one said Apple should or even would use the most powerful P-M (the OC'd cpu in the tech-report article doesn't even exist yet) in a lowend system like a MiniMac, just that it would be hypothetically possible and possible to offer as an option, and a better choice than anything AMD is producing, including the Turion. Even the slowest available P-M today would trounce the G4 currently in those systems. Apple isn't going to be paying retail for Intel CPU's either. No matter how you fenagle the numbers AMD would not be able to produce what Apple wants while still trying to break into the corporate market as well as maintain their current market share. The transition to dual core is only going to make it harder for AMD to try and compete with Intel from a manufacturing standpoint. It's pretty much a moot point now anyway, since it appears Apple chose Intel.