Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #3 · External hard drive advice for windows vista |
Yeah, that's true. With the OC schemes they employ for the Xeon Macs you have to shut-down and then once the kernel stack is unloaded turn off the machine - because the restart init fails. It's not a big deal but I agree OC on the MacPros if not done differently is pretty lame. I tried it a few times just to see. It also messes with some other subsystems causing things like incorrect time-clock speed, flakey audio, and so on. But we can skip the OC sentence in my post all together and it's all just as true. And for those chanting "mactard, mactard, mactard..." this has almost nothing to do with Mac vs PC. It's about Workstation grade Xeon based systems vs Desktop grade iCore based systems. Kind of a different argument all together when ya read the posts without interjection and assumption.
Ya know, it's not like I'm talking out my ass here. I have a buttload of machines at my fingertips. 6 really nice workstations, 8 or so "desktop grade" boxes, and at least 2 new-spec laptops. And with my retirement status which seems to be on and off lately, it's a pretty interesting little playground to test, compare, and dink around with stuff. So usually if don't get to excited and post peak speeds as averages, I know what I'm talking about and have tested it first.
Another point I would like to make on the "cache argument" in my reply to aubsxc, is that if the caches are responsible for the high scores then why do slower drives rate slower. Seems to me that caches would mostly equalize the differences. My last RAID0 compare with Hitachi drives was topping out at 400MB/s and averaging 300MB/s instead of the 400MB/s averages and 500MB/s peaks that these Seagates are. Seems to me that if system and drive caches were interfering then that would show up in the tests in more obvious ways. Or what, slower drives have slower cache memory?