AnandTech Article: Q2 2004 Desktop Hard Drive Comparison: WD Raptor vs the World

[Pariah]

That entire article is pretty much worthless. The benchmark suite is terrible. I would no sooner buy a hard drive based on the tests results of that suite than I would a gaming video card based on performance running the same tests.

Yes, but wouldn't RAIDing the Raptors have similar effect to RAIDing the 7200RPM behemoths? In essence what I'm saying is that the graphs would be very similar, only the performance deltas would be increased, no?

Correct.

Edit:

Also, the article incorrectly states that the Raptor II is using NCQ. And it appears that author doesn't understand what ncq is to begin with, because they attribute better performance to it in an application where it wouldn't make a difference even if it was working.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: Pariah
That entire article is pretty much worthless. The benchmark suite is terrible. I would no sooner buy a hard drive based on the tests results of that suite than I would a gaming video card based on performance running the same tests.

i have the same feeling. i was trying to get at that conclusion in my first post (but didnt quite get there ).

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Pariah
That entire article is pretty much worthless. The benchmark suite is terrible. I would no sooner buy a hard drive based on the tests results of that suite than I would a gaming video card based on performance running the same tests.

Yes, but wouldn't RAIDing the Raptors have similar effect to RAIDing the 7200RPM behemoths? In essence what I'm saying is that the graphs would be very similar, only the performance deltas would be increased, no?

Correct.

Edit:

Also, the article incorrectly states that the Raptor II is using NCQ. And it appears that author doesn't understand what ncq is to begin with, because they attribute better performance to it in an application where it wouldn't make a difference even if it was working.

From The Boss:

You're correct, the mentions of command queuing were leftover from some early tests on a new SATA controller with support for the feature. Those tests didn't make it into the article, and I've updated it accordingly.

 

[Pariah]

This has just been posted on Storage Review's front page. So for those interested in the benefits of TCQ/NCQ, there should be some informative readings shortly:

"Ever since Western Digital's Raptor WD740GD was announced, oh, about 10 months ago, enthusiasts and IT professionals everywhere have been patiently (or otherwise) waiting for concrete results that demonstrate the potential benefits of the the drive's tagged command queuing (TCQ).
We've been embroiled in hundreds of hours of testing using several different TCQ-enabled controllers in conjunction with arrays of 1 to 4 WD740GD drives. Unfortunately, many hours of tests remain.

However, we're eager to present some initial results. Stay tuned for the first of a three-part series that will examine what benefits TCQ confers in our relatively modest third-generation testbed in single-user and multi-user setups!"

 

[everman]

Are there any benchmarks that compare the raptor to a 10k scsi ? It would seem to me that for a bit more, going scsi would make more sence to me. But I'm not a hard drive expert/enthusiast. Would anyone be able to explain to me why I'd choose a raptor instead of a scsi hd of the same size and speed?
thanks.

edit: well never mind on benchmarks, storagereview has that. How is it that the raptor is beating out ultra 320 scsi 15k rpm drives in some cases there? /confused

 

[fkloster]

"10,000 RPM

Maxtor Atlas 10k IV (1Q 2003)

Maxtor's Ultra320 SCSI Atlas 10k IV delivers the best multi-user performance one can get from a 10k RPM drive. Western Digital's SATA Raptor WD740GD warrants a mention as the fastest drive (including 15k RPM units!) for non-server use.

Past Leaders: Fujtisu MAP3147 (4Q 2002); Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (3Q 2002); Maxtor Atlas 10k III (2Q 2001) "

Nice tidbit from the Storagereview leaderboard

'nuff said.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: everman
edit: well never mind on benchmarks, storagereview has that. How is it that the raptor is beating out ultra 320 scsi 15k rpm drives in some cases there? /confused

for the same reason that other 10k rpm drives are kicking the raptor's ass in server tests - firmware optimizations.

 

[Todd33]

Wow, very little real performance for the money. Glad I didn't sink a bunch of money into Raptors.

 

[fkloster]

What in the hell am I missing here... arn't Raptors the fastest SATA drives on the planet?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: oldfart

Looking at the older IBM 75GXP and Maxtor D740X drives, it's interesting to see that the fastest drives of today are around twice as fast as the fastest drives from a few years ago.

Wow, a 75GXP DeathStar that is still working?!

Yeah. I wish I still had some working ones, those drives really were hella fast, at least when they were working. The few drives that I purchased after my 30GB 75GXP, were actually slower in real-world operation.

 

[Tostada]

The SATA Hitachi Deskstar 7K250 (which has 8MB cache and a 3-year warranty) is generally cheaper, faster, and quieter than every comparable drive. Well, the Samsung is a little quieter. The Hitachi 7K250 is about as fast as a Raptor 36G, though. In my experience, the only practical drives to buy these days are:

Samsung for ATA
Hitachi 7K250 for SATA
Raptor 740GD for SATA if you want the absolute best performance.

Look at NewEgg's current price of the Hitachi 7K250 SATA line with 8MB cache and 3-year warranty:
80GB = $74.00 delivered
160GB = $103.50 delivered
250GB = $194.00 delivered

Raptor 740GD = $200.00 delivered

The Raptor 740GD is 25% faster in some situations. Still, in most systems I would prefer to spend $200 for a RAID of two 160GB Hitachi's instead of a single 74GB Raptor.

I see many people still recommending WD's non-Raptor drives, which just don't keep up. Here's some stats from StorageReview.

High-End DriveMark 2002:
Raptor 740GD: 585 IO/sec
Raptor 360GD: 467 IO/sec
Hitachi 7K250: 442 IO/sec
WD800JB: 375 IO/sec

StorageReview Gaming DriveMark 2002:
Raptor 740GD: 749 IO/sec
Raptor 360GD: 588 IO/sec
Hitachi 7K250: 588 IO/sec
WD800JB: 477 IO/sec

WB99 Max Read Transfer Rate:
Raptor 740GD: 71.8 MB/sec
Raptor 360GD: 57.4 MB/sec
Hitachi 7K250: 60.4 MB/sec
WD800JB: 49.3 MB/sec

Idle Noise:
Raptor 740GD: 42.3 dB/A
Raptor 360GD: 43.1 dB/A
Hitachi 7K250: 41.5 dB/A
WD800JB: 45.0 dB/A

 

[imported_JGF]

Originally posted by: fkloster
What in the hell am I missing here... arn't Raptors the fastest SATA drives on the planet?

Yes they are, thats not in dispute. Whether their performance premium (10-15% realworld) is enough to warrant their high price/capacity limit is another issue entirely. For the record I was going to buy a pair of raptors for the new system Im in the process of putting together. Now I'm just going to go with a single Seagate7200.7 drive (120 gigs). Saved myself a bunch of money that can be spent on other more important components (ram, cpu, vid card etc).

To get me interested in the raptors again, WD would have to price the 74 gig model around the current price of the 36 gig model.