15K RPM SCSI Ultra 320 Vs. Fibre Channel

[HungryForHertz]

Just wondering. I was thinking the SCSI is probably faster with seek but the fibre channel is overall higher performance because the massive amount of data is can move so quickly?
Inj that case I take it SCSI 320 is better for benchmarking/high performance desktop/entry-level servers, whereas Fibre Channel is low-marking but super high transfer rate, ideal for real servers? (assuming PCmark, SysMark etc is based more on hard drive seek speed)

Although how are Seagate managing a 15K with a speculated transfer rate of 3GB(their 4th generation drive, yet to be released), or am I wrong in the assumption it uses SCSI Ultra 320?

[Xaotic]

Three GB/s is the overall data capacity of the interface, not the data rate of a single drive. Physically, the drives are either 10K or 15K SCSI using different controller PCBs and interface methods. There may be some other changes, but the base mechanicals follow standard design practices. Where the 3GB/s interface comes into the picture is high bandwidth RAID arrays, where agregate performance improves due to the number of disks. Current FC-AL is available in 1 and 2GB/s interfaces.