Reconsidering the Raptor

[spiderhole]

I just build a new machine (P5B dlx, E6600) to replace my aging dual Xeon system. The old one had a 74g Raptor which is being sold with the computer, so I wanted to repalce it with the 150gb version. I ordered it for my primary/OS/applications drive and a 320gb WD 7200rpm sataII (KS) for my secondary storage drive.

The Raptor arrived DOA unfortunately, so now I'm considering just forgetting about a replacement, using the 320g 7200 as my primary and ordering another 7200 as my storage drive. The cost is about half of the Raptor and doing it this way won't hold up getting the new machine up and running. However, I don't want to do it if there is going to be a substantial speed loss in loading Windows, programs and games, etc.

So, what do you guys think of the newer sata 3.0 7200rpm drives vs the 10K raptors? Would I be dissapointed if I just went the easy/cheap route?

Thanks,
M

 

[TimoneX]

Welcome to the forum.

I ran one of the 320GB Seagate perp drives on their own prior to getting another for RAID 0 and it was very quick on it's own. I think the Raptor's once substantial performance lead has dwindled quite a bit and now it's tough to justify it's price/GB premium.

 

[spiderhole]

thanks for the reply...

What is the current speed champ of 250gb 7200rpm sata drives (for single/non raid use)?

 

[TimoneX]

The Hitachi Deskstar is a nice drive, but has 8MB cache. I think you can find a Seagate Perpendicular 250GB SATA II drive w/ 16MB cache for about the same price. That'd be my recomendation.

 

[uOpt]

There's no question that the Raptor is still better.

Problem is: since it is small it is a hassle to constantly keep the data you want on it. To make best use of it you would install all games to the drive letter of the Raptor and then move them off to the snail drive while not playing.

Not neccessarily worth the trouble. But certainly faster.

 

[crfracer290]

There's no question that the Raptor is still better.

Problem is: since it is small it is a hassle to constantly keep the data you want on it. To make best use of it you would install all games to the drive letter of the Raptor and then move them off to the snail drive while not playing.

Not neccessarily worth the trouble. But certainly faster.

Windows takes up like 8 gigs, thats 66 gigs for games, 4 gigs a game, thats almost 17 games, I dont know about you but I dont play more than 17 games on a regular basis.

 

[TimoneX]

I dunno about you guys but I fill up 600GBs routinely. The raptors are just too tiny for the $$$.

 

[terran2k]

if you're going for just file storage, I'd get the 7200 rpm for that, and a raptor for the O/S. Raptors seem so over priced to me.

 

[aaronjb]

I dunno about you guys but I fill up 600GBs routinely. The raptors are just too tiny for the $$$.

Would you buy a Ferrari to haul livestock?

The raptors are built for speed. Install your OS and main programs on them, then move the music, movies and backups to another drive.

 

[OkydOky]

Would you buy a Ferrari to haul livestock?

If I had the extra money: Yup!




The raptor is still the better drive, no matter what anyone says.
The new perpendicular drives are great, and when you factor in their price, they are outstanding, but when what you want is pure performance, the raptor is what you need to look at.

I might even suggest getting two 74Gig raptors, and Striping them. Raid 0 is great for peformance.

As for what Perpendicular drives are best: Right now I'd go with some Seagates 7200.10. If you have the cash, might want to look into getting Three or more and look at raid 5.

 

[spiderhole]

Would you buy a Ferrari to haul livestock?

The raptors are built for speed. Install your OS and main programs on them, then move the music, movies and backups to another drive.

Yep, thats what I've always done.

 

[TimoneX]

Few question whether or no the WD Raptor is a great drive. It is. Many, including myself question whether it's high cost/GB is justified. Obviously this is a personal decision and to me the answer is an easy. No. At $2.16/GB for the 74GB Raptor I think it's an easy pass when compared to the very nearly as fast $.29/GB Seagate 7200.10. Just my opinion. Now when the Raptors were first introduced I believe they had a greater performance lead over the "average" HD on the market making their price easier to swallow.

 

[spiderhole]

Well, at the $199 I'm paying for the 150 that comes to $1.33/gb...not a bargain but a bit easier to swallow. It was a tough decision but I guess the reality is I didnt want to "downgrade" hd speed in my new computer vs. the old one.

 

[uOpt]

The question here is - how much space to do actually need?

Windows takes up like 8 gigs, thats 66 gigs for games, 4 gigs a game, thats almost 17 games, I dont know about you but I dont play more than 17 games on a regular basis.

If that was true, then why do people buy 500 or 750 GB harddrives?

 

[terran2k]

I really doubt people buy a 750GB to fill it up with video games. Its probably for movies and mp3s and backup cd images and other personal data.

 

[Jeepson33s]

^ agreed

 

[deathman20]

I have 3x 320Gigs in Raid. While previously I had 2x 250gigs and they where filled nearly all the time.

While raptors are mainly for there seek time not there average MB/s read/writes. They still beat out the perps in that arena but perp drives are right behind them in the average MB/s reads/writes if its a 16Meg drive and seek time is the onlything they don't get relatively close in.

For instance the 3x drives im running in a Matrix raid the first 50gig of each drive I use for my primary, OS, Games, Programs. I get 232MB/s average with a latency of 9.6ms. Second half of the raid gets a 180MB/s Average if not mistaken (could be higher) and latency is roughly 13.6ms.

Its fast, and I have no regreats with it, the only thing that could be better about my rig, getting rid of this crappy creative card that slows down my loads because of crappy drivers.