Win 7 Boot harddrive - 10k or SataIII

[gr8scott18]

I want to load Win 7 on a harddrive for my new motherboard which has Sata II
ports

I can get a WD Raptor drive with 10,000k rpm, but SataII

Or, I can get a 72k rpm drive with SataIII

Which would be faster?

 

[charlie]

I want to load Win 7 on a harddrive for my new motherboard which has Sata III
ports.

I can get a WD Raptor drive with 10,000k rpm, but SataII.

Or, I can get a 72k rpm drive with SataIII.

Which would be faster?

I'd favor the Sata 3 drive, because I do have one of the 10k Raptors,
and don't see a significant enough difference to justify the additional
cost and the potential shorter life, due to the 10k RPM.

SSD drives far outclass and of the normal hard drives, and 240G SSD's
have come down in price.

 

[Bob I]

I want to load Win 7 on a harddrive for my new motherboard which has Sata III
ports.

I can get a WD Raptor drive with 10,000k rpm, but SataII.

Or, I can get a 72k rpm drive with SataIII.

Which would be faster?

72,000 rpm would probably melt the heads off the end of the arm!

 

[Char Jackson]

72,000 rpm would probably melt the heads off the end of the arm!

I agree, but then what about 10,000k RPM? Ten million RPM would emit
quite a shriek, for as long as it lasts.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I agree, but then what about 10,000k RPM? Ten million RPM would emit
quite a shriek, for as long as it lasts.

We cold drill holes in the platters and create a siren effect.

It is true that the heads don't touch the platters, but at those speeds,
the air friction should cook them anyway, as in spacecraft reentry

I just had a thought (and it's only Wednesday!): at those speeds, the
eddy currents generated by the disk data's magnetic fields should have
major deleterious effects too.

 

[Paul]

I want to load Win 7 on a harddrive for my new motherboard which has Sata III
ports.

I can get a WD Raptor drive with 10,000k rpm, but SataII.

Or, I can get a 72k rpm drive with SataIII.

Which would be faster?

The disk sustained platter rate, is barely faster than SATA I on a
lot of disks. SATA II on the interface, ensures the faster part of
the disk at the beginning, isn't degraded by the cable speed.

(SATA I versus SATA II on a 500GB 7200RPM disk...)

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/842/500gb3500418ascomposite.gif

SATA III is overkill. It helps fill the cache RAM chip on the disk
faster. And the cache RAM is getting larger (some are 64 MB now).
So maybe it helps a bit. The cache wasn't really enabled that much,
in previous generations, but now it helps with things like 512e emulation.

One of the factors in seek time, is half the rotational latency (on
average). The 10,000 RPM disk completes a rotation in less time,
than a 7200 RPM disk. But when I read the reviews for the Raptor,
I can't see many people noticing the difference in seek time.
You should be able to notice it, when copying many small files.

Before buying any disk, always read the customer reviews. Raptors
do fail, and you'll want to review what people are finding, to know
how the unlucky customers make out.

An SSD drive, is in an entirely different league. But again, you
need to be doing things that take advantage of its characteristics.
For example, if you're copying many small files off the SSD, it'll
fly, as there is no head to move, and seek time is 50 microseconds.
But if the OS is sluggish, it'll take all the fun out of it. There
are SSDs that run at full SATA III rate, so you can get 500MB/sec
in a benchmark.

SSDs require even more research, than your Raptor idea, as the failures
there can be firmware related. You want an SSD with a controller that
doesn't have known problems. (Sandforce firmware issues come to mind,
as well as earlier on, the Jmicron stutter problem.) You can find cheap
SSD drives by smaller companies, but if you don't read the reviews first,
you could easily get burned on the transaction. Some of the trashy
stuff (we don't know who makes them) dies in three weeks.

Paul

 

[Ken Blake]

72,000 rpm would probably melt the heads off the end of the arm!

But it's not as fast as the 10,000k rpm he talks about above that.

10,000k rpm - 10,000,000 rpm. Now *that's* fast! <g>

 

[Ken Blake]

But it's not as fast as the 10,000k rpm he talks about above that.

10,000k rpm - 10,000,000 rpm. Now *that's* fast! <g>

I see that I wasn't the first to notice that. Sorry for repeating what
others said.

 

[Char Jackson]

I see that I wasn't the first to notice that. Sorry for repeating what
others said.

No worries. I take it as confirmation.

 

[Bob I]

I see that I wasn't the first to notice that. Sorry for repeating what
others said.

'sOK I blew right past it! Let's see circumference = Pi*Diameter so
about 10 inches around the edge of a 3.5" drive so about 8 million feet
per minute/5280 ft/ mile * 60 minutes/ hr. Humm that's moving right
along at about 91k MPH or Mach 119!!