3 or 6gbps?

thunderflash · 20 Feb 2011 at 22:28

Seagate SATA II or WD SATA III?

Am going to get 2 x 500gb drives and Raid 0 them to tide me over until I have enough for the new SSD ones out later this month or next month.

Are the Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB SATA 6Gb/s 16MB Cache

Faster than or just better than Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache?

Just the seek times on the Seagate is slightly faster in the description.

thunderflash · 20 Feb 2011 at 23:23

Never mind, went for the Western Digitals, only short term solution even if I didn't make the right choice

Ch3m1c4L · 20 Feb 2011 at 23:30

neither will be close to the limits of sata 3.0gps, top HDD's are only just hitting the limits of sata 1.5gbps now. So which ever is better overall for your needs, both are good drives.

SSD's are what is pushing the limits of the sata speeds.

thunderflash · 21 Feb 2011 at 07:42

Ch3m1c4L said:
neither will be close to the limits of sata 3.0gps, top HDD's are only just hitting the limits of sata 1.5gbps now. So which ever is better overall for your needs, both are good drives.

SSD's are what is pushing the limits of the sata speeds.

Thanks, they will just be storage drives as a raid 0 once I get the SSD, have put aside £200 for the new ones when they arrive, hopefully enough for them if not then the old c300 ones might be cheaper once they are out.

one of these

Simpic · 23 Feb 2011 at 16:53

Ch3m1c4L said:
neither will be close to the limits of sata 3.0gps, top HDD's are only just hitting the limits of sata 1.5gbps now. So which ever is better overall for your needs, both are good drives.

SSD's are what is pushing the limits of the sata speeds.

What is the point of the makers advertising the HHD with the SATA3.0 @ 6Gbs interface if the data transfer rate is way below SATA2.0?

Am I missing something?

tom_e · 23 Feb 2011 at 16:56

Simpic said:
What is the point of the makers advertising the HHD with the SATA3.0 @ 6Gbs interface if the data transfer rate is way below SATA2.0?

Am I missing something?

Its a marketing exercise, people like bigger numbers weather they are actually worth anything or not is a different matter.

chippy08 · 23 Feb 2011 at 17:15

Its just to make you think your getting something better so you part with your cash.

TrojanWhore · 24 Feb 2011 at 17:35

thunderflash said:
they will just be storage drives as a raid 0 once I get the SSD

I would strongly urge you to just set them up as 2 separate storage volumes;
in RAID0, if one drive dies, (or even if they just lose track of one another,) you lose everything, and normal HDDs are plenty fast enough for loading films off of

obviously it's your choice, but having just lost a 2TB array, I will not be bothering with raid0 again for a while (and in going back to a single older drive, the difference is negligible)

Ch3m1c4L · 24 Feb 2011 at 19:17

yea, only go for RAID 0 if you need the sustained write speeds. which most people dont. I have done it with my games drive but I see fsk all difference. RAID 5 is pretty good for storage purely since you can take one drive failure (just had one fail on me) but once you get above a certain number of drives (~5) you want something with more redundancy.