best hard drive brand???

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

bigpoppapumpg

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2002
52
0
18,630
Ok guys, I've been concentrating on video cards lately and haven't really kept up with consensus' of who makes the best hard drives. I'm buying a new one and have about $100 to spend. I could get a retail 80 GB 7200 rpm maxtor or a 100 GB 7200 rpm 2 mb cache WD for exactly $100.

I could get a oem WD 80 GB 7200 rpm 8 MB cache for $106 or an oem IBM deskstar 80 GB 7200 rpm 2 MB cache for $92. Both the oems come with a 3 year warranty.

I've heard good things in the past about IBM, the glass platers and AFC technology and very quiet. So which one should I get?
 
WD 800 JB (80 GB 7200rpm 8MB cache) would be the highest performer. IBM is king of speed among 2 MB cache drives of similiar size but beware of the inherent problems people have had with IBM drives of past (75GXP and 60GXP). Granted, I havent heard of similiar problems with the new 120GXP but, you know... One gets skeptical! I own the Maxtor (40 GB normal bearing spindle 7200rpm 2 MB cache: Maxtor D740X-6L) and it's fast enough, cool enough and quiet enough (its seek noises are high though). From what I've seen, heard and read here and on other websites (or from friends), it seems to be a reliable drive too.
I'd say either get the WD 800JB or the Maxtor D740X-6L 80GB.
 
well I actually bought the maxtor D740X at staples and I hadn't opened it cuz i thought maybe i could get a better drive. since they are all more or less the same and since ive been hearing the ibm drives aren't as reliable I think I will just stick with what i have. that will make 2 identical maxtor d740x's in my system, now I just have to consider a raid card. however my current drive is running off an ata 133 pci card since the mobo only supports ata 100 and my current hard drive performance couldnt be worse. I've benchmarked it and i'm getting 12 MB/sec avg read/writes. VERY BAD! noone knows why either, but I suspect it's the promise pci card. my point is that if i switch my drive to the mobo and the performance increases to where it should then I will know it was the pci card, and buying a raid card my screw the hard drive performance up again so its dubious right now.
 
WD 80GB 8MB cache. I have two of them, and they are the fastest, most noiseless drives I ever owned. The Maxtor are also very silent, but only when idle. Seeking noise from the Maxtor is much higher than that from the WD.
 
Among IDEs:
Best gaming drive - IBM.
Best Server drive - IBM.
Best noise-less drive - IBM.
Best vibration-free drive - IBM.
Best Office opening drive - WD.
Ok all over the place drive - Maxtor.
Best all over drive - depends whom you will listen to.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
Best gaming drive - IBM.
Click to expand...
Gaming? Well why IBM? If this has something to do with performance, there are plenty of other drives out there that has more than enough performance for Gaming. I dont know of any game that really requires significant performance from the harddrive.
Best Server drive - IBM.
Click to expand...
Well this must have something to do with long-term stability. Something that hardly can be associated with IBM these days. Their Deatstars die like flies.
Best noise-less drive - IBM.
Click to expand...
Seagate barracuda, Maxtor D740X and WDs new Caviar series are (significantly) more noiseless than IBM Deskstar.
Best vibration-free drive - IBM.
Click to expand...
Same comment as for noise-lessnes. Less noise gives less vibration also here there are better drives.
Ok all over the place drive - Maxtor.
Click to expand...
Well Ive read tests with poor RAID0 performance with the D740X series and especially the Seagate Barracuda.
Best all over drive - depends whom you will listen to.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but there is a wide consensus that the WDs new Caviar series currently is the best overall IDE drive. I for one think so. When it comes to noise, temperature, performance (even in RAID0) and vibration, I dont think you can find a better drive. As for long term stability. That cant really be said at present time since these drives are not that old.
 
If it gives you two of the exact same drives stick with it. Raid 0 or 1. Wouldn't recommend 0. Try the mb ata100. If its dual channel put each as master. Then the difference between ata100 and ata133 is not! The only time you might use that kind of bandwidth would be with two really nice hd as master and slave. If it this works try changing the PCI slot the card could be ok.
 
Get the WD with 8mb cache.
Click to expand...
This is the most incredibly overated drive in history. I would really like someone to explain in correct terms just what the 8 meg of cache does for you in real world applications. Not some meanlingless half cocked benchmark like sandra or hddtach. Most peole are paying a premium for something they don't even understand. I have six fc-al 10k drives with 16 meg of cache. I also own another six that are identical with exception to the cache size ( they have 4 meg).

Take into consideration not only performance, but warranty and ease of replacement. This is were maxtor really shines and slaps WD silly. Not to mention the Maxtor drives have a slightly faster access time, something that most ( not all ) will notice much more than the extra cache.

All this being said, the WD is a nice drive, its just that it is way to overrated. Too many people are just blindly recommending it without understanding it.


It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 
This is the most incredibly overated drive in history.
Click to expand...
Certainly not. In all tests I've read, the drive outperforms all others in practically all measureable factors.
Not some meanlingless half cocked benchmark like sandra or hddtach
Click to expand...
How else would you compare harddrive performance? Synthetic tests are the only way to make an objective comparison, and they tell a lot about how the drive performs in 'real world applications'
Most peole are paying a premium for something they don't even understand
Click to expand...
You really dont think much of most people. I would expect that most people know what cache is. But apperently you dont. Otherwise you would appreciate it more and wouldnt need and explanation of what it does to 'real world applications'
Yes, you dont get memory for free, but its certainly not 'premium'. The extra few bucks are well worth it.
 
Certainly not. In all tests I've read, the drive outperforms all others in practically all measureable factors.
Click to expand...


No, not actually not in seek times.

A better benchmark perhaps? Say intel's IO meter or winbench.

You really dont think much of most people. I would expect that most people know what cache is. But apperently you dont. Otherwise you would appreciate it more and wouldnt need and explanation of what it does to 'real world applications'
Yes, you dont get memory for free, but its certainly not 'premium'. The extra few bucks are well worth it.
Click to expand...
Well as you most certainly fall under the category of "most people" perhaps you can explain how the extra cache on the WD SE drive will help in real world applications. All this coming from a guy that actually recomend of all drives the IBM?



It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ncogneto on 08/24/02 11:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
I could never begin to explain it better than here, so rather than do a blatant copy and paste I will give the author his due and provide a link. Give it a good read. <A HREF="http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?t=3200&highlight=" target="_new">http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?t=3200&highlight=</A>

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 
LOL, 'Best gaming HD'... Please, why don't some of you pay attention to the fact that when playing a game, your HD does VERY LITTLE WORK (just fire up a game and you'll see what I mean). It's idle most of the time and I'll be damned if I see any real difference between different HDs (i.e. comparable groups e.g. all 7200rpm operating on ATA/100) when loading new levels. And if you mean when installing a game, worse: Becasue it's your CD-ROM that's the bottleneck here.

IBM IS the fastest IDE drive in server BENCHMARKS (according to storagereview.com and xbitlabs.com) but not in the longevity department...
 
No, not actually not in seek times.
Click to expand...
True but if you are transferring large files and they are not seriously fragmented, the extra seek time is swamped by the time for the bulk data transfer. Again it depends on your application what you benefit the most from.

All this coming from a guy that actually recomend of all drives the IBM?
Click to expand...
Who do you say recommends IBM? I certainly do not, which should be obvious from my posts in this thread.
The discussion on storagereview is very interesting but certainly not conclusive. I agree that adding cache beyond a certain level will only have small effect on everyday random-access performance. But as the discussion points out some applications benefits more than others from larger cache.
IMO the extra cache is worth the small extra price, and I believe I benefit from it everyday. Call it placebo effect. But as far as I know that does not affect a stop watch. And I can measure that it is faster for what I do. No synthetic tests here. Further: I cant imagine any situation where the extra cache actually degrade performance.
Anyway this has gone a bit off-topic, and I will stop before it goes too far and we start throwing things at each other.
 
I agree that adding cache beyond a certain level will only have small effect on everyday random-access performance. But as the discussion points out some applications benefits more than others from larger cache.
Click to expand...
As I said before this is true, but not likely for the vast majority of users. Case in point A/V work, in which this drive was originally intended. The discusion clearly shows that above a certain point on a vast majority of applications cache is meaningless in a computer. Most of the users carrying on about the WD SE will never do A/V work,will never be transfering large files ( greater than 500mb)for any extended period of time.


And I can measure that it is faster for what I do. No synthetic tests here. Further: I cant imagine any situation where the extra cache actually degrade performance
Click to expand...
And your point of reference is what? What are you comparing it too? An older generation drive?

Further: I cant imagine any situation where the extra cache actually degrade performance.
Click to expand...
It all depends on the implementation of the firmware and the way cache is optimized. Alot of A/v firmware is implemented in a way that results in a slightly reduced transfer rate, but a better rate of transfer across the multiple platters, resulting in a smoother transfer across the disk.


It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 
Call it placebo effect.
Click to expand...
Following taking from storage review:

<font color=red>So why do drives with large caches do so well in benchmarks?

The primary reason is that benchmarks work hard to isolate the drive from its surrounding system. Indeed, drives with larger caches do outperform those with smaller caches, when tested in isolation. When viewed at the system level however, the drive cache is essentially a tiny, mostly inclusive slice of the system buffer cache. How valuable would we consider the inclusive 512K L2 cache of a processor, if its L1 cache was 32MB? </font color=red>

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ncogneto on 08/25/02 09:25 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
western digital special edition caviar.... special delivery baby!

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 
Huh?! I stated my reasons (also check the other discussion about the effects of larger cache). Prove me wrong and I'll stop laughing... :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom