| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 31759 | 2003-03-31 00:07:00 | Seagate Baracudda reliable?? | rayonline (2134) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 132329 | 2003-04-01 00:35:00 | correction link: storagereview.com |
rayonline (2134) | ||
| 132330 | 2003-04-01 01:01:00 | You cannot directly link long URLs on this forum. Your link above is here (storagereview.com) |
godfather (25) | ||
| 132331 | 2003-04-01 01:30:00 | > Storage Review shows the S-ATA Cuda V drive by > Seagate does not perform as well as some ATA-100's > like IBM and Western Digital. Same concl by > Tomshardware. > > In NZL I need to buy a PCI S-ATA card and the S-ATA > HDD cost least $100NZ more than the ATA-100. > > storagereview.com > w.com/articles/200210/20021014ST3120023A_1.html apples and oranges. compare the SATA cuda-V to the PATA cuda-V, and then compare both to the same ibm and wd drives (which by the way did you notice are 8meg cache models, compared to the cuda-V PATA which is only a 2meg cache model, the SATA drive has 8meg cache, but its evidence of the apples and oranges situation). Seagate doesnt have a reputation for holding the performance crown, they have a reputation for reliability, and in more recent times SILENCE. Look at the results again on the link that you just posted, both drives from seagate are neck and neck, and in some places the SATA drive beats its PATA cousin, so the "not performing as well" problem does not lie with SATA. It's entirely the drive. you want to see something different, look here: www.envynews.com and www.theinquirer.net and storagereview.com (hey check it out, a WD SATA drive keeping up with and at times beating SCSI competition... not to mention trouncing PATA, apples and oranges again though - the WD SATA is 10,000rpm wheras PATA is eternally stuck on 7,200... an indication of the added flexability that SATA brings, and it's only early days in the SATA world) the sata cuda v has 8megs of cache, the sata standard includes CRC, hot swappability, future proofing and tiny wee little cables which allow more airflow through your case. To me the cost of the drives are justified. As for the ability to support them, I coughed up that extra bit more and got an Asus A7N8X Deluxe. So I'm equipped for SATA, so the extra cost is not a concern to me. However I can understand your position in having to pay up even more to buy a pci sata controller. End of the day its up to you whether or not you want to be stuck in the now or to look forward, I respect your choice either way, but I know for sure that my next drive wont be PATA. |
whetu (237) | ||
| 132332 | 2003-04-01 03:53:00 | > I'm not biff, I'm just saying that I have no respect > for Tomshardware whatsoever. I could just have > easily gone on a long winded rant on why tom and his > minions are fools but I chose not to, I simply > expressed my opinion and left it at that. If you > guys want to believe what tom and co tell you, fine, > that's your choice and I respect that, just respect > my decision to look elsewhere for far better content. Woah there, don't stress out. |
BIFF (1) | ||
| 132333 | 2003-04-01 04:42:00 | Thanks for the info. I have decided to get the Seagate Cuda IV 7200RPM ATA 100. I have visited the website and obtained the softwares so I can access 80GB as one drive. Ok so the SATA is faster. Technology happens everyday. Computer is not 'the' thing in my life. Not that I will be upgrading every 3months and so.. I don't find it economical paying a premium for something newer when they later will become more standard. And hence if I pay a premium now there is always a opportunity to pay another premium for something down that road. ATA100 is speed fine for me. Rayonline |
rayonline (2134) | ||
| 132334 | 2003-04-01 11:45:00 | Ta whetu Just interested was all, like diverse opinions. Have most of those sites bookmarked, will check the others. Cheers Murray P PS. Thanks for use of post ray :) |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||