Well StorageReview is not what it used to be IMHO. Read an article on their site not long ago that Raid 0 in their test performed no better and a single drive. They either had a flawed test or the wrong OS or whatever. But after reading about 1/2 of the article I moved on. At one time the site was terrific but after they nearly shut down about 3 years ago its not been more than a shadow of its former self.
Their number of reviews are limited to the point where I don't consider their observations to be relevant any longer. Now I don't have the factual information to know whether that quote is valid or not. But for myself - I would verify with another source before I made a decision one way or another. "-----Original Message----- "From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- "[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart "Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:36 PM "To: The Hardware List "Subject: Re: [H] Which Drive " ">I would recommend the Seagate's Barracuda 7200.8 wholeheartedly! It ">supports "> NCQ and probably your next or next next M/b will support that - that "> according to what I read will result in a 15% increase in speed. "> " "A recent in-depth analysis by StorageReview shows that for SINGLE-USER "(read: non-server) usage, command queuing can add more overhead than it "makes up in seek performance improvements. Yes, that is correct: enabling "NCQ/TCQ on a desktop or workstation machine may very well lower "performance, "not increase it. " "Command queuing is, of course, extremely useful in multi-user, server "environments. The "OMG NEED NCQ AND RAID0" on the desktop craze is about as "worthwhile as a "Type R" sticker on a 4-cylinder Honda Civic. " "All that being said, yes, the 7200.8 is a worthwhile drive that should be "considered. I mentioned this in my first reply to the thread. :) " "Greg
