[Esahki]

I'm about to buy a new HD and i'm debating whether to go SCSI or SATA (maybe RAID). I have heard from a friend who recently went SCSI that the overall performance boost on scsi isn't all that great due to poor support for SCSI by windows XP. Is this true? My board is already set up for SATA so that might end up being the cheapest route. Although I'm willing to shell out a few extra bucks if the performance is really gonna be worth it.

[Albuquerque]

False on the "poor support for SCSI by Windows XP". All of the Microsoft NT 5 platforms (Windows 2000 all flavors, Windows XP, Windows 2003 aka .NET) have excellent support for SCSI.

The true cost versus performance of SCSI versus IDE or SATA leans towards the IDE/SATA market. These drives are usually less expensive, don't require an outboard card because it's integrated into the motherboard on most new systems, and the drives themselves are usually good performers.

In simple terms of raw performance, SCSI will win because there are simply faster options available in the SCSI world. You can't find 15,000 RPM IDE or SATA drives anywhere, you don't get SCSI command-queing even on the highest-end outboard SATA converter, and true hardware RAID options are VERY hard to find on SATA outboard cards but are abundant in the SCSI world.

If all you are worried about is raw performance, a high end SCSI system will easily outperfom a high end SATA system. If you're looking for excellent home performance at a good price, you'd be much happier with an SATA or even IDE raid setup.