smids said:
OK, the access is slower, but the read is much greater as are the writes.
Sequential read/write.
Which is nice.. for a relatively small number of applications.
(However, some benchmarks tool seem to put a big emphasis on it for reasons I don't quite get)
@Salami: The Seagate is quieter than the Deskstar. Although depending on how noisy your PC it, you may not notice it when it is not reading/writing. And performance wise, the Deskstar will lead over all. The Seagate is nice because it offfers a 5 years warranty on its entire product range (if I remember right), whereas the Hitachi are 3 years, WD 3-5 years depending on product, and this applies to Maxtor too. Samsung products have a 3 years warranty. There is a perception that drives with 5 years warranty should be better built, hence last longer, making them more suitable for backup. May or may not I say..
RAID-0 (faster transfer rate) will, as you would expect,
not double the performance in every application. Not unlike SLi really. The most noticeable improvement in real world application will be the Windows XP boot-up time. Which is well optimised to take advantage of fast transfer rate.
Video editing (I don't mean encoding) may also get a significant benefit.
I suspect that RAID-0 may help with paging. But more RAM would be better IMO.
Benchmarking HD may benefit from RAID-0.
The rest? The benefit is closer to 10%.
Thats not to say that lower access is everything though. Some of the non-current SCSI drive may have very low access, but would lose to the latest Raptor in all but server tasks... if that.
