Hard drive blues - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Simple_Min · 05-21-2003, 04:14 AM

So I'm looking at couple of Maxtor hard drives...I was wondering what you experts think is a better value....

Maxtor 200GB 7200rpm 8mb cache ata-133 = $165 after tax

or Maxtor 120GB 7200rpm 2mb cache ata-133 = $84 after tax

Both are the DiamondMax brands. Has anyone one of these, also which is better...and does 8mb cache really matter if you are not using the drive as primary master?

I am skeptical of such a large capacity and am worried it may go bad or something, but my worries so far are unfounded and silly.

Thanks all for the help you have given in the past!

arch13 · 05-21-2003, 04:54 AM

Go for the 120gb deive for now. I maen really, do you have a legit need for 200gb of space?

yotta · 05-21-2003, 05:06 AM

I'd go for the 200 GB.

cj22009 · 05-21-2003, 06:31 AM

The 200 is better it has the 8mb cache = better drive performance programs load faster and it just speeds up your whole system

arch13 · 05-21-2003, 09:40 AM

none of us are running back end DB or high cache rendering. The 8mb will never be usable except for bragging rights.
I am running high cache rendering as an architect and it's perfectly fine on a 2mb buffer.
With an 80gb primary, an 120gb secondary, and an external 1gb, i have useless space beyond what i can imagen.
I'm pretty sure that a medium web site like this could have it's entire DB housed on that much space with little problem.
Bottom line:
Don't buy something for bragging rights or containing features your not data intensive to need. Be frugal. Besides, seems you could have 2 120gb for $165.00 and combine shipping for less.

TransAm-LT1 · 05-21-2003, 04:15 PM

You really want the one with the 8 Meg Cache, the extra 6 megs really improves speed. 8 Meg Cache really rock.

darkure · 05-21-2003, 05:12 PM

In benchmarks the 8MB make a big difference. However I have used computers with the new 8MB cache and the old 2MB cache for playing games, surfing, and some photoshop work. I have to say that I did not notice a difference that I could attribute to the size of the HD cache. I say this because the systems were not entirely the same. They had the same amount of RAM (512) and same CPU (Athlon XP 2400) but the one with the better HD had PC3200 ram while the other had PC2100. Accessing stuff on the HD seemed about the same and programs might have loaded a hint faster due to the HD. But if you really need the space why not spend $5 more and buy two 120GB drives, otherwise just stick with the cheaper drive.

Simple_Min · 05-21-2003, 06:11 PM

Thanks for your help everyone...as it's obvious here as well that the 8 MB cache opinions are varying.

I learned later on today that WD/Maxtor and the other hd makers are introducing a 10000 rpm Serial ATA drive with 16MB cache. No dobut it will be expensive, but for what it's worth cheap is the way to go right now.

By the way, both of these deals are at Best buy (120 gb) and Comp usa (200gb) incase anyone was wondering. Cheers

heyal256 · 05-22-2003, 04:27 PM

The one issue that nobody has mentioned yet is that if you go for the 200GB drive, you will need to have either a motherboard that supports ata133 (or drives larger than ~137GB [more like 120gB]), or you need to get a ide controller card that supports the newer larger than 120Gb drives. Other than that, you do notice a speed difference between 2MB and 8MB cache (if you don't the other reason to get the 8MB cache is the 3 year warranty Vs. 1yr for the 2mb cache model).
Hope this info helps you decide

05-21-2003, 04:14 AM	#1 (permalink)
Simple_Min Insane Location: The Local Group	Hard drive blues So I'm looking at couple of Maxtor hard drives...I was wondering what you experts think is a better value.... Maxtor 200GB 7200rpm 8mb cache ata-133 = $165 after tax or Maxtor 120GB 7200rpm 2mb cache ata-133 = $84 after tax Both are the DiamondMax brands. Has anyone one of these, also which is better...and does 8mb cache really matter if you are not using the drive as primary master? I am skeptical of such a large capacity and am worried it may go bad or something, but my worries so far are unfounded and silly. Thanks all for the help you have given in the past! __________________ If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

05-21-2003, 04:54 AM	#2 (permalink)
arch13 Loves my girl in thongs Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada	Go for the 120gb deive for now. I maen really, do you have a legit need for 200gb of space? __________________ Seen on an employer evaluation: "The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead" ____________________________ Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11. -Nanofever

05-21-2003, 05:06 AM	#3 (permalink)
yotta Irresponsible	I'd go for the 200 GB. __________________ I am Jack's signature.

05-21-2003, 09:40 AM	#5 (permalink)
arch13 Loves my girl in thongs Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada	let's be honest.. none of us are running back end DB or high cache rendering. The 8mb will never be usable except for bragging rights. I am running high cache rendering as an architect and it's perfectly fine on a 2mb buffer. With an 80gb primary, an 120gb secondary, and an external 1gb, i have useless space beyond what i can imagen. I'm pretty sure that a medium web site like this could have it's entire DB housed on that much space with little problem. Bottom line: Don't buy something for bragging rights or containing features your not data intensive to need. Be frugal. Besides, seems you could have 2 120gb for $165.00 and combine shipping for less. __________________ Seen on an employer evaluation: "The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead" ____________________________ Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11. -Nanofever

05-21-2003, 05:12 PM	#7 (permalink)
darkure Addict Location: Dodging the ice pick	In benchmarks the 8MB make a big difference. However I have used computers with the new 8MB cache and the old 2MB cache for playing games, surfing, and some photoshop work. I have to say that I did not notice a difference that I could attribute to the size of the HD cache. I say this because the systems were not entirely the same. They had the same amount of RAM (512) and same CPU (Athlon XP 2400) but the one with the better HD had PC3200 ram while the other had PC2100. Accessing stuff on the HD seemed about the same and programs might have loaded a hint faster due to the HD. But if you really need the space why not spend $5 more and buy two 120GB drives, otherwise just stick with the cheaper drive. __________________ COYW

05-21-2003, 06:31 AM	#4 (permalink)
cj22009 On the edge of control Location: Ga	The 200 is better it has the 8mb cache = better drive performance programs load faster and it just speeds up your whole system

05-21-2003, 04:15 PM	#6 (permalink)
TransAm-LT1 Upright Location: Edmond. OK	You really want the one with the 8 Meg Cache, the extra 6 megs really improves speed. 8 Meg Cache really rock.

05-21-2003, 06:11 PM	#8 (permalink)
Simple_Min Insane Location: The Local Group	Thanks for your help everyone...as it's obvious here as well that the 8 MB cache opinions are varying. I learned later on today that WD/Maxtor and the other hd makers are introducing a 10000 rpm Serial ATA drive with 16MB cache. No dobut it will be expensive, but for what it's worth cheap is the way to go right now. By the way, both of these deals are at Best buy (120 gb) and Comp usa (200gb) incase anyone was wondering. Cheers __________________ If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

05-22-2003, 04:27 PM	#9 (permalink)
heyal256 Not so great lurker Location: NY	The one issue that nobody has mentioned yet is that if you go for the 200GB drive, you will need to have either a motherboard that supports ata133 (or drives larger than ~137GB [more like 120gB]), or you need to get a ide controller card that supports the newer larger than 120Gb drives. Other than that, you do notice a speed difference between 2MB and 8MB cache (if you don't the other reason to get the 8MB cache is the 3 year warranty Vs. 1yr for the 2mb cache model). Hope this info helps you decide