They might be very silly questions but after googling a lot I do not find answer of below issues: With respect to speed what is better under two alternatives out of first is having 1 TB hard disk of 7200 RPM 64 Mb Cash and second two hard disk each of 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cash [No RAID]. If processor speed is 3. GHz and RAM is DDR3 1333MHZ. In such case RAM Speed is 2666 MHZ as it is DDR. Now at what speed the processor would work at 3 GHZ or at 2.666 GHZ. Will DDR3 1600 will change the performance. If Board Supports 32GB Ram but installed only 8GB then will it reduced performance of processor or other onboard component / video or graphics performance. SMPS is 450 watts. Is it the peak capacity of the power or it would consumed 450 watt irrespective of what components connected to it. Will It consume more power if two hard disk connected in compare to a single hard disk. In case of windows8.1 when reset with option to delete all personal setting and data then MAC of the onboard LAN card was changed. Is there something wrong? Whole system checked via antivirus and other anti malware programs but nothing found. Thanks for your valuable time.
The specs that you listed aren't valid comparisons for performance. What you want is Transfer Rates. Both burst, and sustained. Meaning copying a few files will give one result, copying GB sized files will give another, because once the cache fills up, it's how fast the electronics in the hard disk can move the binary. See if you can locate some hard drive Benchmarks that cover transfer rates. Usually copying files between disks is faster than moving them around on one disk, but it would depend on the drives, etc. Too many variables to come up with a definitive answer. Dunno about the MAC address problem, sorry.
Hi there. Both options have their pros and cons, so I would say that it depends on your personal preference. However, I personal prefer to have multiple drives storage configuration because I like the idea of having one drive for, let's say games, and the other one mostly for mass storage, but of course there is nothing wrong with a single, larger drive. It's just that Dual HDD configuration will also allows you to do such things as write to one drive while playing from another without any lag, and being able to defrag one (for example) and still have the other one open for use. Also, if you decide to go with two drives this will give you better performance potential than one, and even if you decide to setup a RAID (you don't want now, but still is an option you can take an advantage of eventually) you can choose to add redundancy (RAID 1) or to split the I/O load evenly between the two drives (RAID 0). But on the other hand the extra performance isn't going to do one bit of good if you don't need it or use it - if you're just playing movies then even a single drive will run fast enough for example. Hope this helps and feel free to ask any questions you may have. Cheers!