Scsi disc or Sata disk?

I have 3 discs
First is:SCSI disc 18Gb 10000rpm 4mb cache,with controler witch suport up to 160mb/s.
Second is:WD200gb 7200rpm 8mb cache Stata 1,suports up to 150mb/s
Third is:WD250gb 7200rpm 8mb cache Sata 2,suports up to 300mb/s

Now can somebody tells me if the SCSI disk is bether to use for C or what?I came with an idea that i use SCSI disk for C: becouse of speed,but now from the test i dont know if is the best choise.
SCSI has,up to 20mb/s less data transfer then other WDs in 32mb test,but it has for a 6ms faster radom acces in 32mb test,and 3ms faster in 8 mb test.

Maybe i dont have good jumper setings on SCSI disc,but jumper setings on SCSI is not the same as on normal discs.

I dont realy know,SCSI must be faster than other two disc on the specification paper,but here on test is opposite.

8mb Test
1.Ibm
2.WD200
3.WD250






32mb Test

The tests show that the SCSI is faster. On all the test a higher number = better and the scsi out performs the others. The lower numbers are better for CPU and Random access.

The only thing I like better about the SATA drives is the cache. mb over 4mb is good. But the overall speed of the disk is uncomparable when dealing with scsi.

SCSI drives are the drives of choice for high performance servers and servers in general. I have not seen a server using SATA drives yet but I am sure they exist as SATA and IDE drives get better.

If you noticed that the wd250gb sata2 have 0% for cpu usage,on second place is ibm scsi,third place is wd200gb sata1.

So here is sata 2 wd250 bether then the scsi,and it has more data transfer,only thing is that the scsi is faster in random acces for 6ms.

Im looking to have C: on SCSI or on wd250gb this two drives are the best.

If somebody can tell me in % that scsi is bether then sata2 wd 250gb for around 30-50% than i will leave os win on the scsi if the scsi is bether for 10-20% then Ill consider if this is the right and economical solution.
Becouse scsi is 18gb and it just takeing the place in the PC(third disc)and it warn up other disc for 15 C=59F

I found an article here where it shows that 10K RPM Raptor SATA drives appear to be on par with the performance of even a 15K RPM SCSI drive.

I will agree that the 10K Raptor can compete with a SCSI. But I find it hard to believe that a 7200 RPM drive can compete. The only thing I can see giving it an edge is the 8MB of cache.

Read these:
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/tip ... 19,00.html
http://www.barefeats.com/hard35.html
http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles.php?id=19

The other advantage of SATA is that it is much cheaper.

SCSI is 50% faster than SATA but SCSI has a more high price.
Now you can choose what you need.

Is it 50% faster from the test i give on topic???
I dont know if my disc is raptor series is probably 3-4 years old.The scsi disc i have,so i dont need to buy it,its just the problem if from above test between the discs is scsi faster for 50%.

I have been looking into SCSI for myself.
I prefer to use WinXP Pro at the moment.
From the guide I have read there are two references(with dead links) to XP Pro compatibility issues with SCSI.

From what I read I became interested because with SCSI I would have faster seek time, multi-threaded capability, and this has been described as something which the operating system would be able to utilize as well as applications and the swap file.
The guide I read compared SCSI to IDE as follows: you get more storage with IDE but less performance. the inverse for SCSI, more performance and less storage.

Here is the guide with references.
The order of the article is the conclusion comes first:
http://scsi.radified.com/scsi_08.htm