Hardware Investigating SATA 6Gbps Performance

Fixed that completely. It was two sentences I merged without re-reading.

tseax - no problem

 

wont somebody think of the children!!!

 

The grammer did not detract from the article in my op.
On page one where the hardware is listed at the top; I was wondering if that was placed there to show what was tested with, or if it is part of the [reviewers must state they have been provided with free hardware] that the U.S. recently sent around. I would like to think it's both, but for some reason that new legislation is kinda stuck in my head.
I also started to wonder at how small the graphs were, until thinking about how much time it takes to test hard drives, and that there really isn't any 6Gb drives on the market yet.
Overall a very informative review,

 

sorry read your post wrong thought you said it had detracted from the article, was gonna be snarkey about a grammer mistake in your post.

 

Everyone provides us with hardware. It makes no difference to what we do and don't get - if someone doesn't want to send us something we don't care because there's plenty more to do, or, if we still want to cover it then we'll buy our own or seek out another partner. Thankfully we've exceeded critical mass where companies cannot ignore our traffic and readership, so it's less beneficial for them to ignore us.

We're not a US publication, we don't suffer pathetic litigation hehehe the long standing quality and impartiality of bit-tech and now Dennis Publishing should ring loud enough and yea, there are some people in our industry we know of that.. well, "do their own thing" on this front, and all I can say is that you should read many reviews for many thoughts! Not just for bias, but for multiple review styles, benchmarks, opinions, etc

I stated it up front because I wanted to let people know from the outset it's not a review of one particular product: there are several products we are covering. Sometimes people cannot differentiate between "feature" and "review".

Appreciate the positive feedback though

 

Thanks for the article Bindi - good to know I can continue with my upgrade plan with nary a worry.

 

I think you'll find bit-tech are thankful for people pointing out errors in their articles.

 

Why don't you volunteer as a proof reader? No, seriously. The moderators donate their spare time to the upkeep of these forums. Some members (including myself) have contributed the odd article or review for free (mine are the very odd ones). You could make a valued contribution to the Bit-Tech community.

Bit-Tech needs you. Will you answer its call to glory?

 

Actually, it's spelt grammar! hehe

 

Am I reading this right that both boards had to gimp themselves somehow to include the 6Gbps chip?

 

"....and now the Barracuda XT offering the biggest and best of everything Seagate has to offer the consumer market "


Does that include re-allocated bad sectors straight out of the box like the 7200.xx series?

 

Shush you

 

trouble is they aren't all fixed, i pointed out an error in the phenom 2 550 review on the first page where you said it has 8mb of L3 cache when it has 6mb in august and that slipped by. I'm not much of a grammar nazi but that's quite a misleading mistake to go unfixed

 

Lame phone crash, try that agane

The 550 6mb 8mb cache should be fixed, can't be hard to change an 8 to an 6

(First post that failed was bit less blunt) Please do not make to much of an big deal about it make an new thread to correct it (seems fine to me the review but I no grammer expert) I have seen sites that are far wourse then any of bit-techs topics (if there are any)

Sata 600 not much use now until ssds get it as hdds do not need much more then sata150, its the usb 3.0 I be far more intrested in and sata 300 is plenty for ssd due to its the random access that makes the ssds faster then hdds (why raid has limted speed benerfit with ssds and lack of trim support so the 2 ssds in raid would end up slower then 1 ssd that this sata 600 work around most likey does not support trim command due to its drivers)

 

I guess we will have to wait for the new SSD to become available, otherwise I really don't see the point.
The HDD limitation is still a major factor.

Maybe USB3 will be the biggest performance increase

 

I do hope you've not forgotten that older Windows versions (as far back as WFWG 3.11 IIRC) also cached hard disk data, with earlier versions using the DOS Smartdrv utility.

Of course, more recent versions have more memory to play with but anything from NT onwards will use all spare memory for disk caching.

 

Nexxo: The Propagandist par excellence.

 

Great very use full. thanks team.