• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

74gb raptor vs 7200.10 raid 0

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

KaiPLN

Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Location
under a bridge somewhere in nyc
Now which solution would be better for a win 7 os drive since I have a raptor lying around???

Edit
Ok what I meant in the first place is how would a single 74gb 16mb raptor compare to two 7200.10 32mb drives in raid 0???
 
Last edited:

moz_21

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Location
MN
I've got a 74gb Raptor and a 1TB 7200.11, I'll do a HDTune test and post screenshots in a minute.

:Edit: Here they are. These tests were run on an A8N32-SLI (NForce4) board. Windows was running on a drive separate from the ones tested. Take note of the access times.

The Seagate:
Seagate_7200.11_1TB.jpg


The Raptor:
1x_74gb_raptor.jpg


And for fun, 2x Raptors in Raid0, 128k stripe:
2x_74gb_raptor_raid0_128kstripe.jpg


P.S. I just switched from the raid0 Raptors to the single Seagate drive for ease-of-use reasons. I was sick of having to load raid drivers (Windows) and dmraid (Ubuntu) to run them, especially since a single drive can about match the performance now.
 
Last edited:

tuskenraider

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2002
The Raptor:


And for fun, 2x Raptors in Raid0:
2x_74gb_raptor_raid0_128kstripe.jpg


P.S. I just switched from the raid0 Raptors to the single Seagate drive for ease-of-use reasons. I was sick of having to load raid drivers (Windows) and dmraid (Ubuntu) to run them, especially since a single drive can about match the performance now.
Bad bottleneck there............
 
OP
KaiPLN

KaiPLN

Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Location
under a bridge somewhere in nyc
Well moz_21 by the looks of it you have the 8mb cache raptors because my raptor is the 16mb version and i get an average read of 86mb/sec plus my two 7200.10 drives in raid 0 have a acess time of 8.9 ms compared to my raptor which has a 8.3 ms acess time....so now im thinking of switching to the raptor drive for my os and go raid 0 for storage since i have lots of big files and such but i had my raid array give me problems with windows since i had explorer.exe crap out on me constantly after a fresh installation...twice...so checking the error reports i had a bad sector on one drive but i have another drive apart from the 7200.10 and the raptor and win 7 is running withouth a hitch on it and not giving me that damn explorer.exe error not even once....i find it weird
 

moz_21

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Location
MN
Bad bottleneck there............

These are the original 74GB Raptors. I've never gotten better than this on ANY controller. I've tried Silicon Image, VIA, NVidia, never done better than that, unless you'd have a clue why? I never was happy with the performance in raid0 with them, much less as single drives.

Well moz_21 by the looks of it you have the 8mb cache raptors because my raptor is the 16mb version and i get an average read of 86mb/sec plus my two 7200.10 drives in raid 0 have a acess time of 8.9 ms compared to my raptor which has a 8.3 ms acess time....so now im thinking of switching to the raptor drive for my os and go raid 0 for storage since i have lots of big files and such but i had my raid array give me problems with windows since i had explorer.exe crap out on me constantly after a fresh installation...twice...so checking the error reports i had a bad sector on one drive but i have another drive apart from the 7200.10 and the raptor and win 7 is running withouth a hitch on it and not giving me that damn explorer.exe error not even once....i find it weird

I believe they are the 8mb cache version. It was the Raptor that came out right after the 36GB version. Old as the hills.... I'd probably do the same as you, run the Raptor as OS drive and the 7200.10's in a raid0 or raid0+1 (you never mentioned how big they were).
 
OP
KaiPLN

KaiPLN

Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Location
under a bridge somewhere in nyc
I'd probably do the same as you, run the Raptor as OS drive and the 7200.10's in a raid0 or raid0+1 (you never mentioned how big they were).

If its storage I run raid 0 since they are both 500gb drives and I sliced out a 100gb partition for a OS abd the rest for sotrage when I was using only 2 drives in my system.
 

tuskenraider

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2002
These are the original 74GB Raptors. I've never gotten better than this on ANY controller. I've tried Silicon Image, VIA, NVidia, never done better than that, unless you'd have a clue why? I never was happy with the performance in raid0 with them, much less as single drives. Hard drives taper off in speed as the heads move inward as I'm sure you know. Flat lines in a benchmark for an HDD show a bottleneck, which isn't the hard drive itself. Amazing if that occured for you over and over on different chipsets......moot now I suppose. Having owned every generation Raptor myself across multiple chipsets as well, I found the first 74's did about 64MB/s average read and about 120MB/s with a pair in RAID0. My first 36's averaged 57MB/s and 110MB/s in RAID0, next gen(36,74's) did about 72-78MB/s as singles, 150MB/s in RAID0. VR's 110 single, 220 RAID0.


I believe they are the 8mb cache version. It was the Raptor that came out right after the 36GB version. Old as the hills.... I'd probably do the same as you, run the Raptor as OS drive and the 7200.10's in a raid0 or raid0+1 (you never mentioned how big they were).
 

moz_21

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Location
MN

IDK. They never did better on a Silicon Image or Nforce4 or VIA chipset... :shrug: