Guspaz
Rated PG
|
 Posted: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:07:39 Post Subject: |
 |
|
I feel that one part of this review is critically flawed, and that is that you tested the reference drive with SATA-150 instead of SATA-300. This is an apples to oranges comparison.
That is akin to benchmarking a gaming rig with 1GB of RAM against a budget machine with 512MB of RAM, and removing half the memory in the gaming rig to make it "fair".
A user installing either of the two drives into a machine with SATA-300 support would use what the drive supports. If the user bought the SATA-300 drive they would run it in SATA-300 mode, if they bought the Maxtor drive, they'd run it in SATA-150 mode. As such, the drives use as a reference benchmark in the article is meaningless.
Allow me to make another analogy; this is like reviewing the improvements from the GeForce 4 to the Radeon 9700, but running the Radeon in AGP 4x mode. Would the change make a large (or possibly any) difference? No. Is it fair? No!
I urge you to re-benchmark the reference drive in SATA-300 mode to provide an unbiased reference. |
|
