• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Tim

  • Rank
    <a href='/patron.html'><b>StorageReview Patron</b></a>

Profile Information

  • Location
    Los Angeles, CA
  1. 1. Maybe unload heads or reduce RPM. 2. One minute, 3 seconds. It's a weird notation. Actually, I think it is exactly what it looks like: 1.03 minutes. That is the same as 62 seconds. 62/60 = 1.03333, rounded down to 1.03.
  2. Hate to tell you, but that no longer applies to modern systems, (well since the introduction of the i81x chipsets). Memory clock is no longer tied to the FSB, as it was many years ago. To answer your question, starman. Yes it will work fine, with a slight reduction (that you probably won't notice) in performance. 211356[/snapback] At least on AthlonXP systems it was not recommended to run the FSB and memory asynch. While on some mobos it was physically possible, it introduced system instability in most cases. I understand it is now commonplace to do so on P4s and A64s, but at the time I replied, I did not know what type of system starman was using (he's since said P4). Thanks for clarifying my incorrect statement.
  3. Your FSB will drop to 166 from 200Mhz if you do. If your cpu is multiplier-locked, that means the cpu will be running slower as well. For example, if you have an Athlon XP 3200+, its native speed is 11 x 200 = 2200Mhz. If you run this processor with PC2700 ram, it will be running at 11 x 166 = 1833Mhz. CPU speed is reduced, and memory bandwidth is also reduced. But it will work.
  4. Getting back to the original poster's question, I think it would be worth using. If it's a Maxtor, it's probably an Atlas 10k III? I have a 36GB Quantum Atlas 10k II and it feels about on par with a modern-day 7.2k rpm IDE/SATA drive. Compared to the other drives I'm using currently, it feels slightly slower than the 74GB Raptor, about as fast as the Barracuda 7200.7 NCQ SATA, and slightly faster than the Barracuda 7200.7 PATA. It's signifcantly louder during seeks than any of these drives, but runs not much hotter. And since the 10k III is marginally faster than the 10k II, I'd say it will be pretty close to a 74GB Raptor in performance. I base all my impressions from a single-user desktop perspective. I believe the 10k III is in the database. Do a comparison using the Office DriveMark scores and you'll see it more or less jives with my experiences. Good luck, Tim
  5. Tim

    DISK IMAGING - free software

    Drive Image 2002 works well for me too. Although, I've had no problems moving image files around. Keep in mind you need a FAT32-partitioned drive to save your images to, since DI works from DOS (it will image NTFS partitions but the destination needs to be FAT32).
  6. Tim

    Another one bites the dust...

    I haven't seen anyone ask if you're overclocking your system? If so, what speed is your PCI bus running? Overclock the PCI bus too high and it could have negative affects on the hdds (or any other components tied into the PCI bus).
  7. Tim

    Nvidia 7800 GTX.

    I recently saw a review of the Radeon x800XT AGP in a 2.3Ghz Athlon XP system. Almost all benchmarks were cpu-limited. I'd wager that on your 1800+ the 7800 GTX (if it came in AGP) would perform exactly the same as a 6800 GT, so if you insist on upgrading the video card and not the rest of the system, save your money and get something along the lines of a 6800 GT or x800XL/x800XT. Anything faster than those will show no added benefit without more cpu power.
  8. It's very nice to see you again... stick around! 206878[/snapback] Good to "see" you too! I've periodically lurked over the months, but wanted to say something since the site helped me make a decision I ended up being happy with. I'll stick around as much as Michelle and my new son will let me.
  9. Hi AforceII, Agreed. I have an older 80GB 7200.7 PATA 8MB cache (13A) as an archive storage drive in my system and it too is significantly slower-feeling than the SATA version (17AS) I just got for my wife. It gets about 14.7ms in access time tests. I've never used it as a boot drive and it basically just holds digital photos and backup images, so I don't have a good feel for its speed, but the impression I get is it's noticeably slower than the 17AS. Take care, Tim
  10. Doesn't matter how much cheaper per gigabyte it might be, it's only a better value if you will use the space. Since we won't use but a tiny fraction of an 80GB drive, all we're interested in is the bottom line: $65 < $80. I see your point, but in our case it doesn't apply. Besides, this post's main point was about giving user feedback of an 80GB version of this drive, not debating what's a good value.
  11. There are a number of "best partitioning strategies" depending on who you ask. Some of it depends on how (or if) you plan on doing system backups. Some people prefer a small boot partition so they can back it up quickly. Others like a single partition to simplify the backup process, though it may take more time. Others like to keep all their different file types (boot, program, system, archive) on separate partitions just for organization's sake. One final scenario is separating file types on different physical drives to minimize catestrophic failure. If one drive fails, the data on the other drives is not lost. If you do decide to make a separate boot partition, be sure you account for enough space so you don't wish you made it 1 or 2 GB larger down the road. If you have 2 physical drives, it isn't always ideal to put the page file at the front of the 2nd drive. If the 2nd drive is significantly slower at seeks than the 1st, it may still make sense to keep it on drive 1. In theory, it is best to have hard drives by themselves on IDE channels, but in my experience, I have never (in the past 5 years or so) noticed any degradation in performance by filling all IDE channels or even master/slaving two hdds. Sure, you can create scenarios where someone can say "I told you so" but only you can decide if you'll ever genuinely encounter that scenario in everyday use. Currently I have an IDE hdd slaved to an optical drive because that's the only way I can cable it in my case. It's never been an issue performance-wise for me. The drive performs as it should in low-level tests and I never noticed a situation where it and the optical drive were working at the same time and things slowed down noticeably. In fact, awhile back I remember running some tests where I tried to cause a failed CD-R write by running the Winbench Disk Winmark test at the same time I was burning data from that hdd to my burner (with burner slaved to hdd) and I couldn't do it. That to me was the ultimate test. I believe I documented that at the time in a post here. I have no idea if it still exists in SR's forums, though. In the old days, motherboards were more finicky about how you configured IDE devices. These days, things are much better. But because those finicky old days tend to stick in our minds, many of us still live by them. That's not to say there's anything wrong with that, but just keep in mind that IDE channels are much more flexible at being configured without sacrificing performance than they used to be.
  12. I've been shopping the latest SATA drives for my wife's computer for the past few weeks, using the awesome results database here as a reference. She doesn't need gobs of space (she's never used more than 10GB of space on her computer) and I'd rather save the money and get an 80GB drive, so I narrowed my choices to the latest generation drives offered in an 80GB flavor. I could not find Maxtor's MaxLine series in anything close to 80GB and did not know enough about the Maxtors that were offered in 80GB capacities to have any confidence in their performance. So it came down to Western Digital, Hitachi 7K250, and Seagate. I noticed there are results for the 7200.7 NCQ in the database here (no review yet) and this seemed to be the best performing of the Seagate offerings available in 80GB. So I compared this one to the 7K250 and WD. The 7K250 is clearly the cream of the crop, but the tradeoff appears to be a 0-10% performance premium in desktop performance (based on the various DriveMarks in the database here) in exchange for 2 years of warranty. I took the Seagate based on the 5 year warranty. I could live with 10% less performance. I just did some quick low-level tests on the drive using HDTach before putting it into service. I got an access time of 12.6ms...a tad quicker than the 160GB drive in the database here. HDTach doesn't give a numerical value for beginning and ending STR (that I can find)...but eyeballing the graph, it looks to be right at 60MB/sec beginning and 30MB/sec ending. Seems to be slightly faster at the beginning, and slower at the end than the drive in the database...probably statistically right in line with it though. It's got a noticeable seek noise (subtle grinding) that can barely be heard above the case fans (PSU fan, one intake fan, one cpu fan, and one mobo chipset fan). Basically, you can tell it's there and working, but it's not obtrusive. Subjectively, the drive feels fast. It feels about the same speed as the Quantum Atlas 10k II it replaced, and a touch slower than the 74GB Raptor in my system. I'm amazed that the combination of capacity, 5 year warranty, and performance can be had for only $65 plus tax and shipping. I'd like to thank SR for providing the information I needed to make my purchasing decision. PS - Hello to anyone here that may remember me!
  13. Tim

    Amd 2700+ Abit Kv7 Instability

    Remove the stock thermal pad from the heatsink. Scrape it off with a razor blade. Clean both the heatsink and the cpu with 91% alcohol (get from drug store if you don't have any under the bathroom sink). Reapply the heatsink with new grease (preferably Arctic Silver 5). Lastly, and most importantly, you said you have an old, suspect powersupply. New mobos these days NEED a quality powersupply, >300W. Does yours have a specific connector for 12V? Notice that small 4 pin connector on the mobo at the upper left, right near the PS2 connectors. That is an additional powersupply connection with dedicated 12V to help power the cpu. You need >300W and the PS must have a 12V rail that plugs into the mobo. This is in addition to the standard ATX power connector. This is probably more likely to be causing your problem than the heatsink. I believe most, if not all newer Athlon XP, Pentium 4's, and 64-bit Athlon mobos have this 12V rail to give the cpu a dedicated power source.
  14. Tim

    Amd 2700+ Abit Kv7 Instability

    But are you running the cpu and memory at the *same* speed? You should not be running them at different speeds. Remember, the memory options page in your bios has two main selections: memory speed and memory timing. If your cpu is set to 166 FSB, then set your memory to 166 (333DDR) and the timings to SPD. You didn't say if you checked your cpu heatsink. Remove it and reapply it to make sure it is fitting securely and making solid contact with the core. Just for kicks, try running the computer with the side panel off and see if that helps. If it does then it's probably a cooling issue. Either the cpu heatsink/fan is not on correctly or it's not powerful enough; or perhaps your case is not circulating cool air efficiently. If that's the case, try (as I said above) a case fan that blows over the chipset area. BTW, your temps at 1.69Ghz are a bit on the high end. I would consider those acceptable load temps for the cpu at XP2700 speeds. Check for dust bunnies in your lower front case intake as well as in between the fins of your cpu heatsink.
  15. Tim

    Amd 2700+ Abit Kv7 Instability

    Also, make sure your memory and FSB are in synch. IE, don't run the cpu at 133 FSB and ram at DDR333. For a 166 FSB cpu and DDR333 ram, make sure the ratio is set to 5:2:1.