<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Frozen Technology &#187; Hardware</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frozentechnology.com/category/hardware/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frozentechnology.com</link>
	<description>Archives from FrozenTech</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:52:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>A Tale of Two Thermalrights</title>
		<link>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/11/16/a-tale-of-two-thermalrights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/11/16/a-tale-of-two-thermalrights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nick58b</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frozentechnology.com/wordpress/?p=4</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>This review of the Thermalright SLK-800 and SK-7 will illustrate the temperature  difference between the two heatsinks, as well as show the cooling effects of three different fans both pushing air onto and pulling air from the heatsink.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The SK-7

The SK-7 is an all copper 485 gram heatsink. The first thing notable about this heatsink is <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/11/16/a-tale-of-two-thermalrights/">A Tale of Two Thermalrights</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Thermalright SLK-800 w/Vornado" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/tornado.jpg" /></p>
<p>This review of the Thermalright SLK-800 and SK-7 will illustrate the temperature  difference between the two heatsinks, as well as show the cooling effects of three different fans both pushing air onto and pulling air from the heatsink.</p>
<p><span id="more-4"></span></p>
<p>The SK-7<br />
<img src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/images/slk800vsk7/sk7-small.jpg" /><br />
The SK-7 is an all copper 485 gram heatsink. The first thing notable about this heatsink is its weight. It is much heavier than the stock aluminum heatsink that comes with retail AMD processors. It comes securely packaged in a small cardboard box with the Thermalright logo printed on the top. Inside the box was a syringe of thermal paste, foam pads, and 8 wire fan clips. These clips connect to the base of the heatsink, and allow four fan sizes between 70mm to 80mm. The base of the heatsink is polished to a mirror finish, and the heatsink attaches securely to the motherboard with the use of a three pronged heat sink clip. The heat sink does not come packaged with a fan.</p>
<p><strong>The SLK-800</strong><br />
<img src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/slk800-small.jpg" /><br />
The SLK-800 is an all copper 505 gram heatsink. It is more expensive than the SK-7, and the one I received did not come packaged with any thermal compound.  It too was packaged securely in a small cardboard box. It came with foam pads, and two wire fan clips. The clips packaged width the SLK-800 fit into holes made in the side of the heatsink, and by changing which holes they<br />
are placed  in allow fan sizes from 60mm to 80mm. The SLK-800 uses a three pronged clip to attach itself to the heatsink, and during testing appeared to be extremely  secure. Even with the heavy weight of the heatsink, I never felt the heatsink was insecure when moving my computer. This heatsink is also sold without a fan.</p>
<p><strong><font size="+1">Differences Between the SK-7 and the SLK-800</font></strong><br />
<strong>Top<br />
</strong><br />
<strong><img width="250" height="188" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/topcomparison-small.jpg" /></strong><br />
<font size="-1">(SK-7 and SLK-800)</font><br />
From the top these two heatsinks do not differ much from each other. Both use thin copper fins soldered to the solid copper base. The SK-7,  on the left, is actually 9mm wider than the  LK-800.<br />
<strong>Bottom<br />
</strong><img width="250" height="188" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/bottomcompare-small.jpg" /><br />
<font size="-1">(SK-7 and SLK-800)</font><br />
When viewed from the bottom the difference between these two heatsinks becomes apparent. The SK-7 has a much larger, square base. The SLK-800 has a smaller     rectangular base that does not restrict airflow. Both are polished to a mirror finish.<br />
<strong>Side<br />
<img width="250" height="188" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/sidecompare-small.jpg" /></strong></p>
<p><font size="-1">(SK-7 and SLK-800)</font><br />
The sides of the two heatsinks do not show much design differences. There  are two notches in the fins of the SK-7 that are not present on the SLK-800.  Both have steps on the edges to hold onto different size fans. On the side of the SLK-800 there are five sets of holes for the wire fan clips.  The SK-7 has holes on the bottom of the heatsink for its four sets of fan clips.<br />
<strong>Fins<br />
<img width="250" height="188" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/fincompare-small.jpg" /><br />
</strong><font size="-1">(SK-7 and SLK-800)</font><br />
The fins of both heatsinks are made from thin copper and welded to the base of the heatsink. The SK-7&#8242;s fins are folded over on the edge which helps them from bending. The SLK-800 has nothing to protect this, and without careful handling can be damaged. This picture also shows how the SLK-800 is taller and thinner than the SK-7.<br />
<strong><font size="+1">Test Configuration</font></strong><br />
<strong>Fans</strong><br />
The test of these two heatsinks involved six different airflow configurations using two fans, a Zalman ZM-F1 and a Vantec Tornado. The Zalman fan is a standard 80mm by 25mm sized fan and comes with a resistor, which allows operating the fan at two different speeds. Normal operation at 12 volts pushes 39 Cubic  Feet of air per Minute (CF/M) while being 34.4 decibels loud. With the resistor  in place the Zalman pushes only 20.6 CF/M, but at a quiet 20 decibels. The  second fan used is a Vantec Tornado. This is a monster 80mm x 38mm fan that  pushes 84 CF/M at a loud 55 decibels. To make the test more interesting I tested this fans both pushing air down into the heatsinks, and pulling air out of them.</p>
<table width="50%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tr>
<td style="width: 57%"><strong>Fan</strong></td>
<td style="width: 20%"><strong>Airflow (CF/M)</strong></td>
<td style="width: 23%"><strong>Decibels</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zalman ZM-F1 @ 5.5 volts</td>
<td>
<div align="left">20.6</div>
</td>
<td>
<div align="left">20</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zalman ZM-F1 @ 12 volts</td>
<td>
<div align="left">39</div>
</td>
<td>
<div align="left">34.4</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Vantec Tornado</td>
<td>
<div align="left">84</div>
</td>
<td>
<div align="left">55</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><font size="-1">(specs from manufacturer) </font><br />
<strong>System</strong><br />
The heatsinks are attached to the CPU using Arctic Silver 3 heat compound,  using the detailed instructions on the companies website. The CPU used is an AMD Athlon XP 2100+ Palamino, one of the last Athlons manufactured on the  .18 micron process. This also makes it one of the hottest running non-overclocked chips. The motherboard the chip is plugged into is an Epox 8RDA NForce2 based  motherboard. This motherboard is installed in an Antec 830sx case with four  NMB ultra quiet 18 CF/M case fans. Temperature is being read from the motherboard     sensors using Motherboard Monitor 5.2.2.0. The temperature is first read after  letting the system sit idle for half an hour. Then the Folding@Home client  is started, and run for 30 minutes before the second reading. The same F@H work unit was used for all tests.</p>
<p><strong><font size="+1">Results</font></strong><br />
<strong>SLK-800 Results</strong><br />
<strong><font size="+2"><img width="433" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/slk800pushing.gif" /></font></strong><br />
<strong><font size="+2"><img width="432" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/slk800pulling.gif" /></font></strong><br />
<strong><font size="+2"><img width="643" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/directionslk800.gif" /></font></strong></p>
<p>Here we see that the SLK-800 works best with air being pushed down into the  fins. Pushing air onto the heatsink resulted in equal or lower temperatures than pulling air through the fins. As he airflow increased, so did the cooling.  The best scores were achieved by the Vantec Tornado pushing air onto the heatsink.</p>
<p><strong>SK-7 Results</strong><br />
<strong><font size="+2"><img width="427" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/sk7pushing.gif" /></font></strong><br />
<strong><font size="+2"><img width="425" src="http://www.frozentechnology.com/images/slk800vsk7/sk7pulling.gif" /></font></strong><br />
<strong><font size="+2"><img width="644" src="http://www.frozentechnology.com/images/slk800vsk7/directionsk7.gif" /></font></strong><br />
Similar effects to the SLK-800 were resulted with the SK-7. The lowest temperatures  were produced by having air pushed into the heatsink. The higher airflow fans also produced lower temperatures.</p>
<p><strong>Comparison between SLK-800 and SK-7</strong><br />
<strong><font size="+2"><img width="644" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/slk800vssk7pushing.gif" /></font></strong><br />
<strong><font size="+2"><img width="645" src="http://www.frozentech.com/images/slk800vsk7/slk800vssk7pulling.gif" /></font></strong><br />
In the comparison graphs we see that the SLK-800 outperforms the SK-7 in  every test. The widest margins are seen with the lower airflow fans, with the delta between the two heatsinks reaching as high as 6 degrees Celsius.  Even though the SLK-800 and SK-7 are nearly identical on paper, the SLK-800 has a better design that provides a cooler CPU at any airflow.</p>
<p><strong><font size="+1">Summary of<br />
Results</font></strong></p>
<table width="75%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tr>
<td>
<ul>
<li>
<div align="left">Low airflow fans provide adequate cooling<br />
and near<br />
silent operation when set up to push air into these<br />
heatsinks</div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="left">Both heatsinks work better when the fan is<br />
pushing<br />
air into them</div>
</li>
<li>Both heatsinks work better with higher airflow fans</li>
<li>The SLK-800 works better than the SK-7</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<table width="75%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tr>
<td style="width: 19%"><strong>Heatsink</strong></td>
<td style="width: 18%"><strong>Direction</strong></td>
<td style="width: 24%"><strong>Airflow (CF/M)</strong></td>
<td style="width: 14%"><strong>Idle</strong></td>
<td style="width: 25%"><strong>30min F@H</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SLK-800</td>
<td>Pushing</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>49</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SLK-800</td>
<td>Pushing</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>45</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SLK-800</td>
<td>Pushing</td>
<td>84</td>
<td><strong>34</strong></td>
<td><strong>37</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SK-7</td>
<td>Pushing</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>55</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SK-7</td>
<td>Pushing</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>48</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SK-7</td>
<td>Pushing</td>
<td>84</td>
<td><strong>37</strong></td>
<td><strong>40</strong></td>
</tr>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/11/16/a-tale-of-two-thermalrights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Firewire vs USB2</title>
		<link>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/11/02/firewire-vs-usb2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/11/02/firewire-vs-usb2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2003 11:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nick58b</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frozentechnology.com/wordpress/?p=5</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Firewire and USB2 are two welcome replacements for external scsi.  With hot plugging, no id conflicts, and no terminators, the headaches of having a fast external drive are now gone.  Most computers now come with both Firewire and USB2 built in, meaning the only decision to be made about choosing one comes when buying <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/11/02/firewire-vs-usb2/">Firewire vs USB2</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Firewire and USB2 are two welcome replacements for external scsi.  With hot plugging, no id conflicts, and no terminators, the headaches of having a fast external drive are now gone.  Most computers now come with both Firewire and USB2 built in, meaning the only decision to be made about choosing one comes when buying periherials.  With USB2 having a theoretical bandwith of 480Mbit/sec, it is expected to be a bit faster than 400Mbit/sec Firewire.  But specs do not always tell the whole story, so here are some benchmarks.</p>
<p><span id="more-5"></span></p>
<p><strong>Test Setup</strong></p>
<p>To conduct these tests I used a Western Digital 120 gigabyte hard drive inside a Bytecc ME-320U2F external drive enclosure. This enclosure can accept IDE hard drives up to 300 gigabytes, and connect to a computer using either USB2 or Firewire.  The enclosure accomplishes this by using a Oxford 911 chip for Firewire, and an Ali chip for the USB2.</p>
<p>I performed USB2 and Firewire tests on two computers.  A desktop computer using an NForce2 motherboard with a PCI Firewire card, and a Centrino laptop with both USB2 and Firewire built in.  The IDE test was performed on the Desktop machine, and is for reference.</p>
<p><strong>Test Configuration</strong></p>
<p><strong>External Enclosure:</strong><br />
Bytecc ME-320U2F<br />
Firewire chip: Oxford 911<br />
USB2 chip: Ali<br />
Western Digial 120 Gigabyte 8 Megabyte Cache Hard Drive</p>
<p><strong>Laptop:</strong><br />
IBM Thinkpad X31<br />
Windows XP Professional SP1<br />
Firewire chip: Ricoh R5C552<br />
USB2 chip: Intel 82801DB/DBM</p>
<p><strong>Desktop:</strong><br />
Epox 8RDA NForce2 Motherboard<br />
Windows XP Professional SP1<br />
Firewire chip: Texas Instruments TSB12LV26<br />
USB2 chip: NForce2</p>
<p><strong>Tests</strong></p>
<p>All tests were performed using HDTach 2.6</p>
<table width="90%" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" border="0" bgcolor="#999999" align="center">
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td bgcolor="#999999" align="center" style="width: 100%"><strong>RESULTS</strong></td>
</tr>
</table>
<table width="90%" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" border="0" bgcolor="#999999" align="center">
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td style="width: 25%"><strong>BUS</strong></td>
<td style="width: 25%"><strong>Average Read (KBps)</strong></td>
<td style="width: 25%"><strong>Average Write (KBps)</strong></td>
<td style="width: 25%"><strong>CPU utilization (%)</strong></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="center"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>From these results we see that Firewire trounced USB2 in two ways.  The first was that data was read almost twice as fast as USB2.  Writing data occurred at similar speeds using both Firewire and USB2.  The second advantage appeared from the CPU utilization.  On both computers, Firewire used a significantly less amount of the CPU than USB2 when transferring data. According to these benchmarks, Firewire appears to be the better choice for an external hard drive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/11/02/firewire-vs-usb2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lexar Jumpdrive 2.0 Pro 256 MB Review</title>
		<link>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/08/02/lexar-jumpdrive-20-pro-256-mb-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/08/02/lexar-jumpdrive-20-pro-256-mb-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nick58b</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frozentechnology.com/wordpress/?p=7</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I was prompted to purchase the Lexar JumpDrive 2.0 Pro over other similar products because it has a keychain ring, and because it looks good.  I was initially concerned about the size of the JumpDrive Pro because I wanted use the keychain function any carry it around in my pocket. It passed the size test, <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/08/02/lexar-jumpdrive-20-pro-256-mb-review/">Lexar Jumpdrive 2.0 Pro 256 MB Review</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was prompted to purchase the Lexar JumpDrive 2.0 Pro over other similar products because it has a keychain ring, and because it looks good.  I was initially concerned about the size of the JumpDrive Pro because I wanted use the keychain function any carry it around in my pocket. It passed the size test, as I attached it to my keychain two weeks ago and have not yet removed it.</p>
<p align="center"><span id="more-7"></span><br />
<strong>First, the specs (straight from Lexar)…</strong></p>
<p>•  Capable of 6.0 MB/s sustained read speed in USB 2.0 system<br />
•  Capable of 4.5 MB/s sustained write speed in USB 2.0 system<br />
•  Compatible with the USB 2.0 specification<br />
•  Windows 98SE/Me/2000/XP<br />
•  Mac OS X, Mac OS 8.6 or above<br />
•  77.4mm x 26.8mm x 11.0mm</p>
<p><strong>Benchmarks</strong></p>
<p>Test system:<br />
AMD Athlon XP 2800+<br />
Epox 8RDA Motherboard<br />
Western Digital 120 GB 8 MB Cache Hard Drive<br />
Windows XP Service Pack 1<br />
NForce Unified Driver 2.45</p>
<p align="center"><strong>Usefulness</strong></p>
<p>Being both a student and a part-time computer tech, I have found the JumpDrive Pro to be more convenient than I had initially expected.  I find myself using the JumpDrive Pro every day at work. I have stored a collection of virus-cleaning tools, system patches, and some diagnostic tools.  There is nothing more aggravating than installing a new system, then realizing that the network card drivers are 10 megs and the only storage device available is a floppy.  The JumpDrive Pro excels in that kind of situation.</p>
<p>For school I can throw files onto the device before running to class. On campus I can go into any computer lab and instantly have access to my files.</p>
<p><strong>Compatibility</strong></p>
<p>I have come across many different computer configurations at school and work and can say that the JumpDrive Pro handles everything it has come against.  So far that includes various computers running Windows 2000 and XP, and Mac OS 9 and X. The only time it did not work was when I had it plugged into the keyboard of a G4 Mac. Mac OS 9 informed me that the USB bus did not have enough power to drive it. I moved it to a USB port on the back of the computer, and it worked flawlessly from there. I would estimate the number of computers I have used it with to be around 40, and I have yet to install drivers.</p>
<p>I have used it on only one Linux box, my own running Gentoo.  I had SCSI and USB media options already compiled into the kernel for a USB Smartmedia drive, so when I plugged in the JumpDrive Pro it was automatically detected as a SCSI device. A simple “mount” command was all I needed to have full access to the device.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>I have found the Lexar Jumpdrive Pro to be extremely useful in everyday activites. It is a great tool because it holds much more data than a floppy, is quicker to write files to than a CDR, and still works with a huge range of computers. I can not see myself ever getting rid of this device. It has become an essential piece of equipment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/08/02/lexar-jumpdrive-20-pro-256-mb-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Western Digital 120 GB SE 8 MB Cache 40 GB vs 60 GB Platters</title>
		<link>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/04/16/western-digital-120-gb-se-8-mb-cache-40-gb-vs-60-gb-platters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/04/16/western-digital-120-gb-se-8-mb-cache-40-gb-vs-60-gb-platters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nick58b</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frozentechnology.com/wordpress/?p=8</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>After happily receiving my second Western Digital Special Edition 8 MB Cache (WD1200JB) hard drive and mailing the the rebate forms I compared its sector count to my original drive. The sector count is significant for these drives because it indicates if the drive is based on 40 GB platters, or the newer 60 GB platters. <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/04/16/western-digital-120-gb-se-8-mb-cache-40-gb-vs-60-gb-platters/">Western Digital 120 GB SE 8 MB Cache 40 GB vs 60 GB Platters</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After happily receiving my second Western Digital Special Edition 8 MB Cache (WD1200JB) hard drive and mailing the the rebate forms I compared its sector count to my original drive. The sector count is significant for these drives because it indicates if the drive is based on 40 GB platters, or the newer 60 GB platters. I had read that the 60 GB/platter drive was preferable because the higher density platters of the drive gave it better performance. But how much better? And if I received the 40 GB/platter drive, should I be disappointed and return it?</p>
<p><span id="more-8"></span><br />
I was happy to see that my new drive was based on the 60 GB/platter technology. I<br />
cloned the disk using Norton Ghost and proceeded to run some rough benchmarks on<br />
the two drives. Remember, these results are for the drives in the system I use everyday</p>
<p>and should not be compared to any other benchmarks on the net. Their purpose is only<br />
to illustrate the difference between the 40 and 60 GB/platter Western Digital WD1200JB<br />
hard drives.</p>
<p>Some Information:</p>
<p>Sector Counts:</p>
<p>40 GB/platter:  234375000</p>
<p>60 GB/platter:  234441648</p>
<p>System:</p>
<p>AMD Athlon XP 2100+ (Palomino)</p>
<p>Epox 8RDA Nforce2 Motherboard</p>
<p>768 MB PC2100 DDR RAM</p>
<p>Windows XP Professional SP1</p>
<p>Gentoo Linux (kernel 2.4.20)</p>
<p>Benchmarks:</p>
<table cellpadding="3" border="1">
<tr>
<td><strong>Benchmark</strong></td>
<td><strong>40 GB/platter</strong></td>
<td><strong>60 GB/platter</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sisoft Sandra 2003:</td>
<td>27317</td>
<td><strong>29854</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>hdparm (disk)</td>
<td><strong>39.80</strong></td>
<td>39.68</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>hdparm (buffer)</td>
<td>353.59</td>
<td><strong>415.58</strong></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>From these simple tests we see that the drive based on the 60 GB/platter technology is a<br />
small amount faster in the Windows benchmark. Running hdparm in Linux shows the<br />
same sustained transfer speeds when reading data from the disk. The most interesting<br />
piece of information came from the hdparm buffer reads, where the 60 GB/platter drive<br />
had buffer reads almost 16% faster than the 40 GB/platter drive. Since it has an 8<br />
megabyte buffer, this drive could theoretically take a large lead over the previous<br />
generation in speed tests, but in most cases the speed difference will not be noticeable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frozentechnology.com/2003/04/16/western-digital-120-gb-se-8-mb-cache-40-gb-vs-60-gb-platters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
