According to ur logic no one would care about hd3870xt, 9800gx2, 9800gt(x) and so on cause we already know how they will perform -.-
According to ur logic no one would care about hd3870xt, 9800gx2, 9800gt(x) and so on cause we already know how they will perform -.-
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T@3.5GHz@Scythe Mugen 2 <-> ASRock 970 Extreme4 <-> 8GB DDR3-1333 <-> Sapphire HD7870@1100/1300 <-> Samsung F3 <-> Win8.1 x64 <-> Acer Slim Line S243HL <-> BQT E9-CM 480W
And have we really been surprised yet?![]()
i7 2600K | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | GTX Titan | Corsair DDR3-2133
Bad analogy (not surprising who it is coming from).
Those do not scale LINEARLLY.
Adding platters to a drive doesn't improve performance, just adds space. The drive only reads from one platter at a time, and therefore the platter transfer rates are virtually identical.
Therefore, if you know how one of the 334GB/platter drives performs, you know how the whole series using those platters will perform.
Very bad analogy especially as he calls the 3870 an hd3870xt lol.
Its nice to see that they are moving to single platters which should have some kind of performance gain compared multi-platter, pretty small i guess.
However i want to know how does this drive compare to Raptor and all drive reviews should have a Rapor as reference point so we know how far the 7200rpm drives have developed.
TAMGc5: PhII X4 945, Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UD3P, 2x Kingston PC2-6400 HyperX CL4 2GB, 2x ASUS HD 5770 CUcore Xfire, Razer Barracuda AC1, Win8 Pro x64 (Current)
TAMGc6: AMD FX, Gigabyte GA-xxxx-UDx, 8GB/16GB DDR3, Nvidia 680 GTX, ASUS Xonar, 2x 120/160GB SSD, 1x WD Caviar Black 1TB SATA 6Gb/s, Win8 Pro x64 (Planned)
It seems logical and that's exactly what I thought... Until... New WD 320 and 640 drives turned up. Why is there such a big difference in access times between the two? I suppose this only confirms that it's best to bench specific drives and do not draw conclusions for the whole family based on a specific drive performance.
Bookmarks