Full Version: 10,000 RPM Drive
I've got a gaming computer that is about 1 year old, and it has a 7200 RPM drive in it. I am considering buying a 10,000 RPM 36GB drive, but I have had different people tell me that it will increase speed different amounts. I was planning on loading all my games onto the faster drive, and having XP run off the 7200. A salesman at the computer store I go to (PC Club) told me that I would notice a difference in my came performance because they need fast seek time, but my neighbor said it's not worth the money. What do you guys (and girls) think?
Personally, I don't know that I'd go for a faster drive. What's the cache on your 7200 drive? That's probably at least as important. Since games mostly run in memory, that's where you should be concerned. If you're running XP, at least a gig.
If you're experiencing occasional game slowdowns or pauses while the game seeks data on your hard drive, then it might help. If your frame rate isn't good, then the video card may not be quite hot enough. I don't play a lot of high-intensity games anymore, so I'm a bit out of the loop, but I suspect most of the rules still apply.
If you're experiencing occasional game slowdowns or pauses while the game seeks data on your hard drive, then it might help. If your frame rate isn't good, then the video card may not be quite hot enough. I don't play a lot of high-intensity games anymore, so I'm a bit out of the loop, but I suspect most of the rules still apply.
My cache is 8MB, and I've noticed that sometimes Far Cry skips and jumps (I'm pretty sure it's not the video card. Mine's top of the line-ish) and the checkpoints in Halo sometimes take a minute or two to save. I don't know if that has to do with other processes, or HD speed though.
This might interest you:
How to set performance options in Windows XP.
This one deals with NT but I'm betting it works for XP too:
How to set performance options in Windows XP.
This one deals with NT but I'm betting it works for XP too:
QUOTE
By default, Windows places the page file on the boot partition where the operating system is installed. To determine the size of the pagefile multiply the amount of physical RAM by 1.5 to a maximum of 4095 MB. However, placing the pagefile on the boot partition does not optimize performance because Windows has to perform disk I/O on both the system directory and the pagefile. Therefore, it is recommended that you place the pagefile on a different partition and different physical hard disk drive so that Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly.
However, completely removing the pagefile from the boot partition does not allow Windows to create a crash dump file (Memory.dmp) should a kernel mode STOP error occur. Not having this crash dump file could lead to extended server downtime should the STOP require a debug to be performed.
The optimal solution, other than the solution of adding more physical memory, is to do the following:
1. Create one pagefile on the boot partition by using the default settings.
2. Create another pagefile on a less frequently used partition on a separate physical disk or RAID volume.
You can create additional pagefiles for each separate physical disk or RAID volume.
Windows will use the pagefile on the less frequently used partition over the pagefile on the heavily used boot partition. Windows uses an internal algorithm to determine which page file to use for virtual memory management. In the above scenario, the following goals of the page file would be served:
• The system will be properly configured to capture a Memory.dmp file should the computer experience a kernel mode STOP error.
• The page file on the less frequently used partition will be used the majority of the time because it is not on a busy partition
However, completely removing the pagefile from the boot partition does not allow Windows to create a crash dump file (Memory.dmp) should a kernel mode STOP error occur. Not having this crash dump file could lead to extended server downtime should the STOP require a debug to be performed.
The optimal solution, other than the solution of adding more physical memory, is to do the following:
1. Create one pagefile on the boot partition by using the default settings.
2. Create another pagefile on a less frequently used partition on a separate physical disk or RAID volume.
You can create additional pagefiles for each separate physical disk or RAID volume.
Windows will use the pagefile on the less frequently used partition over the pagefile on the heavily used boot partition. Windows uses an internal algorithm to determine which page file to use for virtual memory management. In the above scenario, the following goals of the page file would be served:
• The system will be properly configured to capture a Memory.dmp file should the computer experience a kernel mode STOP error.
• The page file on the less frequently used partition will be used the majority of the time because it is not on a busy partition
Thanks. That was some good stuff about the pagefile. I made a couple adjustments and will proceed to find time to play Halo and Far Cry.
I forgot to tell Herk that I do have 1GB of RAM...so, yeah
I also heard that putting the pagefile on the fast HD makes a difference, too. It makes sense...
I forgot to tell Herk that I do have 1GB of RAM...so, yeah
I also heard that putting the pagefile on the fast HD makes a difference, too. It makes sense...
I would also put the second hard drive on the secondary IDE channel. Then your not pushing all your page file requests through the same cable or IDE channel.
Woah. "IDE Channel" went right over my head. Does that mean the other ribbon cable? If so, can it be attached to the same one I have my CD drive connected to?
Most computers have two IDE Channels. Primary and Secondary. The standard setup would have your C: as Primary Master on IDE 1 and your Optical Drive (CD-Rom or CD-RW or whatever) as D: on IDE 2 as Secondary Master. So if you put your your second drive as a slave to your CD on IDE 2 you will get faster data transfer than if both drives are on the same channel (cable).
Its set up that way for faster reading from the CD, say, to the C: when you install something like a program, or Windows. Also you will burn CD's faster from the C: to the CD as the data goes from one drive, down one cable, through the ram and back up the other cable. If you burn something from a drive on the same cable as the burner the data has to go down the cable, through the ram and back up the same cable, so its slower.
Its set up that way for faster reading from the CD, say, to the C: when you install something like a program, or Windows. Also you will burn CD's faster from the C: to the CD as the data goes from one drive, down one cable, through the ram and back up the other cable. If you burn something from a drive on the same cable as the burner the data has to go down the cable, through the ram and back up the same cable, so its slower.
I just found out that I would be getting a Raptor drive, so IDE is not an issue. I guess, since it uses a different cable, stuff from the other drives would go through IDE, to RAM, then to the Raptor, making it faster as well, right?
PS: I forgot what the name of what Raptors use instead of IDE, but I know my mobo supports it.
PS: I forgot what the name of what Raptors use instead of IDE, but I know my mobo supports it.
Is it a SATA drive - the ones that use the tiny red cables?
Yeah, that's what it is. I'm not so sure my mobo supports it now. It's an ASUS K8V Deluxe. I'm gonna check now...
Edit-Yes, it does. It has 2 that say PRI_SATA and SEC_SATA, and another 2 that say SATA1 and SATA2. I assume Pri and Sec are the masters and 1 and 2 are the respective slaves. I'll check my manual to be sure.
I know I'll have to install a Y splitter to get enough power, but does it matter how many times I split one line?
Edit-Yes, it does. It has 2 that say PRI_SATA and SEC_SATA, and another 2 that say SATA1 and SATA2. I assume Pri and Sec are the masters and 1 and 2 are the respective slaves. I'll check my manual to be sure.
I know I'll have to install a Y splitter to get enough power, but does it matter how many times I split one line?
In a recent PC Pro Test the new Seagate SATA 7200.8 kept up with the raptor, it was a 400gb drive they tested.
Seagate Review
Seagate Review
QUOTE
but does it matter how many times I split one line
Sometimes. Look at the back of your computer and let us know how many watts your power supply puts out. In your case it should be 350W or higher.
QUOTE
It has 2 that say PRI_SATA and SEC_SATA, and another 2 that say SATA1 and SATA2
PRI_SATA and SEC_SATA are used when setting up a Raid Array. SATA1 and SATA2 are the equivalent to IDE1 and 2. You would connect your SATA drive to SATA1.
I have a 400W power supply.
You shouldn't have a power problem at all. If you want to make sure, try the Computer Power Supply Calculater.
QUOTE(stidyup @ Jun 21 2005, 01:27 AM)
In a recent PC Pro Test the new Seagate SATA 7200.8 kept up with the raptor, it was a 400gb drive they tested.
Seagate Review
Seagate Review
Thanks for the info! All this stuff about HDs is starting to confuse me (I've been researching). I know the Raptor is faster, and I want to move into SATA, but it seems the Barracuda is a better deal (and just about as fast). I have also considered RAID 0, but then I would be confined to IDE for a while (this should be my last upgrade for a while), unless I got two SATA drives or I can raid together an IDE and an SATA...
Gah!
Too many options! Can anyone help me regain my sanity?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.