Dev wrote on Sep 1, 2020, 10:39:Mine is a sata 500 gb 2.5" in a 3.5" heat sink. Purchased 11/2012 and still going strong. Knock on plywood.Muscular Beaver wrote on Sep 1, 2020, 04:25:Pretty sure they were 3.5", though they were thin as I recall. The reason they were low access is two fold, one they were 10k drives. Not many SATA 10k drives. That's mostly reserved for enterprise market with SCSI and SAS, because most of the time home users won't pay extra for that. Two, they were short stroked, they cut off part of the platter from access. That's why they were weird sizes, like 72gb instead of 80gb or whatever it was, doing that gives an outsized boost to performance.
I had a RAID0 of them. Pretty fast 15 years ago.
Sold them to a friend and one of them died 2 days later.
They only had such low access times because they were 2.5" drives. 3.5" access times have actually improved in the last 15 years, no matter if large platters or not.
Muscular Beaver wrote on Sep 1, 2020, 04:25:Pretty sure they were 3.5", though they were thin as I recall. The reason they were low access is two fold, one they were 10k drives. Not many SATA 10k drives. That's mostly reserved for enterprise market with SCSI and SAS, because most of the time home users won't pay extra for that. Two, they were short stroked, they cut off part of the platter from access. That's why they were weird sizes, like 72gb instead of 80gb or whatever it was, doing that gives an outsized boost to performance.
I had a RAID0 of them. Pretty fast 15 years ago.
Sold them to a friend and one of them died 2 days later.
They only had such low access times because they were 2.5" drives. 3.5" access times have actually improved in the last 15 years, no matter if large platters or not.
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 1, 2020, 04:25:Youre too fast. I noticed and deleted it already.Muscular Beaver wrote on Sep 1, 2020, 04:20:The Rocket 4 Plus will come in 500 GB, 1 TB, and 2 TB flavors...
and yet STILL no 2 TB version.
Dev wrote on Aug 31, 2020, 22:28:I had a RAID0 of them. Pretty fast 15 years ago.Burrito of Peace wrote on Aug 31, 2020, 21:48:Man those short stroked raptors. I used to run them for OS drive. They are getting just a bit long in the tooth compared to SSDs. Or heck, even modern 16tb 7200 drives blow them away in everything but access times, because such large platters have such larger transfer rates.RedEye9 wrote on Aug 31, 2020, 20:49:
Phison is kicking ass and taking names.
read speeds up to 7000 MB/s and write up to 6850 MB/s
That’s starting to embarrass my WD Velociraptor 10,000 RPM drive.
It does look tasty and I would be interested...so long as it isn't at a Samsung price point.
I have a 970 pro now for OS, but these 980s look like they will put that to shame... IF you have PCIe 4, which only AMD has right now (good ole intel asleep at the switch again). Otherwise they are crippled at like 4000 MB/s
RedEye9 wrote on Aug 31, 2020, 20:49:Meh. As a normal user you dont need nor notice those speeds, unless you have 2+ of them and move big files from one to the other all day long.
Phison is kicking ass and taking names.
read speeds up to 7000 MB/s and write up to 6850 MB/s
That’s starting to embarrass my WD Velociraptor 10,000 RPM drive.
Burrito of Peace wrote on Aug 31, 2020, 21:48:Man those short stroked raptors. I used to run them for OS drive. They are getting just a bit long in the tooth compared to SSDs. Or heck, even modern 16tb 7200 drives blow them away in everything but access times, because such large platters have such larger transfer rates.RedEye9 wrote on Aug 31, 2020, 20:49:
Phison is kicking ass and taking names.
read speeds up to 7000 MB/s and write up to 6850 MB/s
That’s starting to embarrass my WD Velociraptor 10,000 RPM drive.
It does look tasty and I would be interested...so long as it isn't at a Samsung price point.
RedEye9 wrote on Aug 31, 2020, 20:49:
Phison is kicking ass and taking names.
read speeds up to 7000 MB/s and write up to 6850 MB/s
That’s starting to embarrass my WD Velociraptor 10,000 RPM drive.