Which is better - ultra 320 scsi or sata 2?

[johnsmith_54]

Which is better for video editing, graphics work, gaming, etc? I have the opportunity to purchase a dual processor (single core) server that would come with three 146gig ultra 320 10000 rpm drives.

My other option is to build a dual or quad core workstation with a single 500g or 1 terabyte 7200 rpm sata 2 drive.

Please remove price from the equation. TIA!

 

[sub mesa]

Build a new one ofcourse, those old dual socket systems are terrible with performance-per-watt. Focus on a cheap quadcore, like Phenom II X4. Regular SATA drives will be fine.

 

[geofelt]

As I understand it, video editing is somewhat cpu intensive, and definitely I/O intensive.
Gaming is I/O intensive onoy for level loads.

I suggest that you review the various benchmarks at www.storagereview.com They include scsci and sas drives as well as sata.
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/bench_sort.php

If you are not particularly price sensitive, I would suggest two WD 300gb velociraptors for OS and work. Put the final results on a large storage drive like the WD caviar black 1tb.

As to the cpu, I agree that building your own will be better. Servers are optimized for high volumes of short random requests, not sequential processing. A modern quad is not that expensive these days.

 

[croc]

Which is better for video editing, graphics work, gaming, etc? I have the opportunity to purchase a dual processor (single core) server that would come with three 146gig ultra 320 10000 rpm drives.

My other option is to build a dual or quad core workstation with a single 500g or 1 terabyte 7200 rpm sata 2 drive.

Please remove price from the equation. TIA!

Depends to some extent on the programs you expect to use. For instance, Photoshop cs3 is not well suited for multi-threaded CPU's, but cs4 is re-built to make extensive use of multi-threaded CPU's. Both will take advantage of more ram, especially when rendering. Maya 3d will use as much CPU and ram as you can throw at it. Autodesk later versions will also eat all of the threads you can give it, as well as as much ram as you can give it. None of the above are particularily drive intensive, but will write very large interim work files, so a fairly fast ~300 GB drive used as a scratch drive would be beneficial. Plus, when a project is finished, the drive can be simply formatted to get rid of all of the interim files used. They don't call the workstations used professionally 'workstations' for nothing...

Since price is not an issue, depending on the application, expect to spend 6k+USD for a professional quality workstation.

 

[sub mesa]

How can you decide for the OP that price is no issue? I can't mind-read yet. 😛

I also don't believe its necessary to invest over 6000 dollars on one PC. Is that really required? Ofcourse you can make everything more expensive but the gain would be minimal over slightly less powerful hardware.

I didn't hear him talking about quad-socket six-core systems yet, so he can probably build a powerful workstation for less than 1500 dollars.

 

[johnsmith_54]

Thanks for everyone's replies. Sorry for any confusion caused. When I said that price was not an issue I meant the price of scsi drives in general. In other words, I was more looking to focus discussion on the technology, not on discounting scsi drives solely because they are more expensive.

The only real reason I was considering a scsi based system in the first place was due to the availability of a good deal with a server containing scsi drives. It seems like the consensus is that building my own system is the better option...

 

[Raviolissimo]

i had a dual Xeon system with the PCI-X Adaptec SCSI-160 controller, and just one or 2 drives on the SCSI bus.

i was surprised when i got a Shuttle system with 2 x 160 GB PATA drives. it was faster !

and SATA is faster than that.