SATA 6GB HDD over SATA 3GB HDD

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Icaras, Aug 7, 2010.

  1. Icaras macrumors 603

    Icaras

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    California, United States
    #1
    I'm aware that the new Mac Pros still cap at SATA 3.0GB/sec and that that SATA is backwards compatible.

    That said, I'm in the market for a WD Black Caviar 640GB drive and was debating between the SATA 2 and 3 versions.

    Currently on Amazon, the SATA 6GB/s model is only selling for a measly $7.49 more than the SATA 3GB/s model.

    So would it perhaps be wise to just up purchase to the 6GB/s model, in case I later decided to sell my MP for a later MP that would include SATA 6GB/s and just swap the drive to the new MP?
     
  2. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #2
    That drive can't match the speeds that SATA 2 can handle, so I don't see the need for the SATA 3 version. Only SSDs really get the full benefit from the upgraded interface.
     
  3. Icaras thread starter macrumors 603

    Icaras

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    California, United States
    #3
    I know, but the MP will eventually support SATA 3, hopefully starting with Sandy Bridge. I could just swap the HDD to a new MP (if i ever decide to sell, that is) and take advantage of the SATA3 speeds.

    Anyway, the point was it only sells for $7.49 more, so I'm thinking, why not? Just in case?
     
  4. PenguinMac macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    #4
    First, if you're really looking to future-proof a drive, buy larger than you need today and get a Caviar Black 1TB. Take it from someone who started with 750GB, then 1TB, and finally 2TB as I needed more and more capacity. You'll get more use out of more capacity than from the 6Gbs interface. Second, not even a 10,000rpm VelociRaptor can come close to saturating a 3Gbs interface much less a 6Gbs, so there's no way to future-proof rotating magnetic media - it just isn't the future.
     
  5. Icaras thread starter macrumors 603

    Icaras

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    California, United States
    #5
    Thanks for both your inputs. I know SSDs are the future.

    I just need this drive for my sample library (for music production), but would eventually replace it with an SSD when prices are much more mainstream. But since time tables for SSD are somewhat in the air, I just figured I'd ask about future proofing mechanical drives.

    I should have just stuck with my original upgrade path idea, which was just to get a fast, but cheap mechanical drive now, and then later replace with an SSD.

    Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
     
  6. covrc macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    #6
    Additional Hard Drives

    Thanks for the above info. That being said...

    I added one Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB to Bay#2.
    (I also have a WD Elements 1TB USB2 and Seagate 500GB FW800 for data backups)

    I am looking to add more internal memory.

    Should I match the Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB or move to the WD Caviar Black 1TB drives for the other two bays? or take advantage of some of the larger capacity though slower equally priced drives. (such as the Samsung EcoGreen F3 1.5TB Serial ATA 3Gb).

    Thanks in advance.
     
  7. Fiete5401 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Location:
    Germany
    #7
    If you already have a Samsung F3 (which is a really good hd in my eyes) you could buy another one and make a Raid 0 out of these two drives. A Samsung EcoGreen F3 2TB or a WD Caviar Green 2TB make a good backup drive or just storage if you don't really need it to be fast.
     
  8. covrc macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    #8
    Thanks

    So using the affordable yet slower 5400rpm drives is OK if they are being used as a back up to the faster drives I will be accessing for active projects?

    I had not been considering the slower drives like the eco line. Are the slower internal drives still faster than my external FW800 and USB2.0 drives?

    Thanks for the assist.:eek:
     
  9. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    It's not really worth it in my opinion. There's no way the drive can saturate SATA2 speeds and SATA3 ports are backwards compatible anyway so the drive would work in any future Mac Pro that has SATA3 compatibility. Some SSD drives are getting close to breaking SATA2 speeds so there it would be worthwhile going for a SATA3 drive sometimes but I really don't see the point with standard drives.
     
  10. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #10
    To the OPs original question of the two 1TB Caviar Blacks, SATA 6Gbps is actually the more minor difference. The 3Gbps one is RE3-derived, the 6Gbps one is RE4-derived, meaning larger platters (500GBx2 instead of 333GBx3), has a larger cache, and a few other new features.

    http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=870&type=expert&pid=1
     
  11. covrc macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    #11
    Back-up Plan

    Hi Guys,

    So many good deals right now, I am looking to fill up the empty bays on my 2009 MP.

    I would like to have my data back-up automatically.

    What additional hard drives would work for this and/or should I buy to 'future proof' as best I can. Should I just buy a couple 2TB Caviar Blacks so as I won't have to worry about them being 'slow' etc.

    I don't game, I do lots of Lightroom and Photoshop and no video editing..yet.

    How would you use my current hardware.

    WD 640 GB Bay #1
    Samsung F3 iTB #2
    #3 empty
    #4 empty

    WD Elements external 1TB
    Seagate Free Agent 500GB FW800

    From what I have read, the Element and Free Agent cannot be used as part of RAID.

    Thanks for the assist. I appreciate it greatly.:eek:
     
  12. covrc macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    #12
    WD Caviar Black

    Ended up getting a great deal on 2 Western Digital 2TB Caviar Black drives.

    Now to figure out how best to use them along with what I have. Suggestions are most welcome.

    Bay#1 WDC Caviar Blue 640GB drive.
    Bay#2 Samsung SpinPoint F3 1 TB

    and now the 2 Caviar Black 2TB drives.

    Any suggestions are most welcome.

    Thanks
     
  13. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #13
    640GB = boot disk
    1TB = dedicated scratch space (you can even partition it for a short stroke partition if you wish, which is faster by keeping data to the outermost tracks).
    2TB #1 = primary data
    2TB #2 = backup of primary data (not a mirror = RAID 1)
     
  14. covrc macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    #14
    Thanks

    Nano,

    Thanks for the reply and direction. It is greatly appreciated.


    640GB = boot disk
    I can keep all my applications on this also, correct?


    1TB = dedicated scratch space (you can even partition it for a short stroke partition if you wish, which is faster by keeping data to the outermost tracks).
    Dedicated scratch space using preferences in PS CS4 correct?
    I know what partitioning is, what size partitions? And what size do you recommend?



    2TB #1 = primary data

    2TB #2 = backup of primary data (not a mirror = RAID 1)
    Not sure what you mean by this. Are you implying manually back up data or use Time Machine etc?

    Thanks covrc
     
  15. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #15
    Yes.

    Yes. Keep it at 10 - 20%, so say 200GB at most (outermost tracks = fastest on the platters).

    Use Time Machine, other backup software (Super Duper or Carbon Copy Cloner), or do it manually.

    Just not a mirror, which is automatic (i.e. if you delete a file, it's duplicated on both disks immediately).

    Backup software won't do this, unless you delete the backups, don't realize it you've a missing file, and make another backup (= no other full or incrementals available to get it back).
     
  16. Apple Corps macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #16
    That is not correct - that drive will never benefit from bandwidth capacity beyond its engineered 300 MB/s output.
     

Share This Page