Overclock.net banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,482 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by MasterFire
View Post

500gb RAID0 with what?

It looks like two seagates, not sure which model though. from sig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I guess since the WD HDD has a cache size of 32MB it will be faster than the two Seagate 7200.11 in RAID 0 with only 2MB of cache?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
They don't make 2mb cache 500gb 7200.11's as far as I know. In the device manager does it specify exactly which model (something like ST3500641AS-RK perhaps)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I took the drives out of the case just to make sure......

On one drive there is a sticker that says:
Seagate Barracuda, 7200.11, 3.5IN, 500GB SATA2, .5MS 7200RPM, 2MB Cache, NCQ Hard Drive.
The other HDD has no such sticker on it, maybe I removed it or it fell off, but it is the sticker with the "warranty void if removed" warning.

Both drives are identical ones. They are: ST3500320AS, P/N 9BX154-303

According to Newegg the ST3500320AS has a buffer size of 32MB.

So, which will be better still? The two 500GB in RAID 0 or the single 1TB Caviar Black from WD?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,484 Posts
Faster in what sense? What are you doing with your system? A lot of gaming? RAID-0 would be faster with large sequential read & write, but you probably wouldn't notice a huge improvement when dealing with small files and random-access times.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,458 Posts
raid 0 will get better average read speeds
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top