WD 36GB RAPTOR 10000RPM 8MB SATA

imac wrote on 4/27/2003, 4:43 PM

Has any one tried these drives?

I have SATA ability on my MB, and here is a drive I can use.

10k rpm should mean more tracks, where seek time means more than sustained transfer rates.

But I've got more than enough tracks, I'm interested in lower CPU overhead.

If anyone here has this drive can you comment on performance differences?

Comments

stakeoutstudios wrote on 4/28/2003, 3:55 AM

I've taken an interest in these. However I feel the capacity is just a bit small for now.

The faster drive wouldn't have much impact on your CPU, where your would notice it is building peaks and loading projects, things like that. Down to the speed of the drive, not the impact it has on your CPU.

With a decent 7200RPM drive, Vegas is far more CPU bound than drive bound in almost every case.

Also, until we get native SATA in chipsets (none are yet), the drive is limited by the bridging chip or the PCI buss which is a real shame. It'll be faster, but not as fast as it could be.

Vegas aside, Windows would boot a hell of a lot quicker and the whole machine should feel snappier.

Jason

imac wrote on 5/1/2003, 6:33 PM

So I have SATA on my MB, but with just one device on the IDE bus, there is no advantage in SATA?
Not for this drive specifically and rpm advantages

I find that with a large track count there is a cpu overhead associated with that (compared to one audio stream) so it is contributing to the cpu load. Of course the HD itself is not a limiting factor, but cpu is and reducing it by a more efficient HD system is desirable.

stakeoutstudios wrote on 5/2/2003, 3:00 AM

I find the CPU use to be very low on my system if all plugins are removed on the tracks.

SATA offers little benefit in this respect.

If CPU is high and you think it's the HDD then remove every single plugin and see exactly how much CPU each track is using...