SCSI and ATA hard drives are evenly matched for speed in 1-2 hard drive systems. However, SCSI drives "show their teeth" in multiple drive systems. ATA drives share bandwidth with anything hooked up the same controller, while SCSI drives have a controller chip built into the drive, therefore bypassing most of the system and increasing performance.
I know that when I put a ultra2 wide SCSI-card AND SCSI (AV)HD in my G3 450 , my computer suddenly felt like a 600 Mhz. It realy does make a difference, imho.
I've got a 10000 RPM SCSI Ultra 160 drive (Quantum Atlas 10K II) and a 7200 RPM ATA 100 drive (Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 60) in my Mac. I don't know if it's because of the higher rotational speed or just becase SCSI is simply better, but the Quantum is noticeably faster in many tasks.
Though, the Quantum drive is LOUD AS HELL. It sounds like a damn 747 taking off when it spins up. Okay, so I exagerate a little , but it *is* a lot louder than the Maxtor.
The RPM does noticeably improve speed. (My earlier post was a comparison between similar drives) I've set up a computer (PC <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> ) with a 1.6Ghz P3, 1GB DDR-SDRAM, and a 15,000 RPM SCSI Hard drive. Noisy as hell, but fast. (It was a server for some company)
<strong>SCSI drives are much faster, more reliable, and have better warranties -- but they cost more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forget to mention that SCSI drives don't have near the capacity of ATA drives. SCSI drives are at what? 75GB? ATA will hit 200GB soon. Nothing about SCSI prevents there from being 200GB SCSI drives, it's just that no one wants to build one.
But whou really needs 200GB of disk storage anyway? I don't. 75GB would be plenty for me.
You forget to mention that SCSI drives don't have near the capacity of ATA drives. SCSI drives are at what? 75GB? ATA will hit 200GB soon. Nothing about SCSI prevents there from being 200GB SCSI drives, it's just that no one wants to build one.
But whou really needs 200GB of disk storage anyway? I don't. 75GB would be plenty for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong maxtor makes 150G drives and I think IBM makes bigger ones.
-
-
RPMs are not everything age and interface mean more. I mean I have 4.5G 10,000 RPM drive and almost any 20G modern drive would be faster. in order for SCSI to be fast you should look at SCSI U2 or better and 2 drives with a raid setup. and that costs
<strong>But whou really needs 200GB of disk storage anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was a time when 8MB of RAM was considered more than adequate for all conceivable computing needs, and hard drives (or Winchester disks as we called them then) ran to a mind-boggling 25MB of screaming power...
*Takes a deep breath and prepares for a punch in the gut*
The only difference between SCSI and ATA is a single chip on the drive's circuit board. The mechanics (Platters/heads/whatever the hell is in the thing) is the same. The hype behind SCSI drives is what keeps their price so damn high. If people knew how easy it was to turn a ATA drive into a SCSI, drive prices would drop to their ATA equivalent. Look at a ATA drive. You will see an empty place for a IC chip. Plug in a SCSI controller and change the plug and you got yourself a SCSI drive.
Comments
Though, the Quantum drive is LOUD AS HELL. It sounds like a damn 747 taking off when it spins up. Okay, so I exagerate a little
[ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
<strong>SCSI drives are much faster, more reliable, and have better warranties -- but they cost more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forget to mention that SCSI drives don't have near the capacity of ATA drives. SCSI drives are at what? 75GB? ATA will hit 200GB soon. Nothing about SCSI prevents there from being 200GB SCSI drives, it's just that no one wants to build one.
But whou really needs 200GB of disk storage anyway? I don't. 75GB would be plenty for me.
<strong>
You forget to mention that SCSI drives don't have near the capacity of ATA drives. SCSI drives are at what? 75GB? ATA will hit 200GB soon. Nothing about SCSI prevents there from being 200GB SCSI drives, it's just that no one wants to build one.
But whou really needs 200GB of disk storage anyway? I don't. 75GB would be plenty for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong maxtor makes 150G drives and I think IBM makes bigger ones.
-
-
RPMs are not everything age and interface mean more. I mean I have 4.5G 10,000 RPM drive and almost any 20G modern drive would be faster. in order for SCSI to be fast you should look at SCSI U2 or better and 2 drives with a raid setup. and that costs
<strong>But whou really needs 200GB of disk storage anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was a time when 8MB of RAM was considered more than adequate for all conceivable computing needs, and hard drives (or Winchester disks as we called them then) ran to a mind-boggling 25MB of screaming power...
The only difference between SCSI and ATA is a single chip on the drive's circuit board. The mechanics (Platters/heads/whatever the hell is in the thing) is the same. The hype behind SCSI drives is what keeps their price so damn high. If people knew how easy it was to turn a ATA drive into a SCSI, drive prices would drop to their ATA equivalent. Look at a ATA drive. You will see an empty place for a IC chip. Plug in a SCSI controller and change the plug and you got yourself a SCSI drive.