Best hard drive setup for a gaming system?

[Sir Jman]

I am currently configuring a system for gaming and various other tasks which will be overclocked as well.

DFI SLI-DR Expert
opteron 165
2gb ocz gold pc4000
7800gt


Now I need a hard drive setup. I was going to go with a 74gb raptor for system and applications, then a larger storage drive but I am looking for the best overall speed. I'm not sure what specs I should be looking for so I need some suggestions. I don't need much space on the main drive but I am looking for speed primarilly. I would be using SATa and I have about $350 to spend on HDDs tops. I need 350-500gb of space total.

 

[yanquii]

I know I'll probably get nailed for this, but the Hard Drive charts on Tom's Hardware are pretty informative. Also, you may want to keep an eye out for the new 150gb raptor with 16mb cache. I know Newegg has them of pre-order for around 300 bucks.

Hope this helps.

 

[Sir Jman]

Originally posted by: yanquii
I know I'll probably get nailed for this, but the Hard Drive charts on Tom's Hardware are pretty informative. Also, you may want to keep an eye out for the new 150gb raptor with 16mb cache. I know Newegg has them of pre-order for around 300 bucks.

Hope this helps.

Not really worth it to me... I still need a lot more storage and I don't feel like spending another $200 on storage drives after that. Plus I don't need that much space at that price.

 

[Cinna696]

36gb raptor for your o/s games 100$
then just get a 400gb drive (seagate has one for 240 and wd has one for 210, although the WD's do have 16mb of ram which would be better

 

[eXx08]

^^^^36GB Raptor + 400GB WD.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Either a large SATA drive with 16MB of cache, or a 36GB 15k RPM SCSI drive for $100. Everything in between is a waste IMO.

 

[Sir Jman]

36GB 15k RPM SCSI drive for $100. Everything in between is a waste IMO.
wouldnt I need a special card to run that?

And would the 36gb raptor relaly be a waste? size wise it is very practical but im not sure how the perform... are there and <300gb sata drives with a 16mb cache I could use for system? The 400gb WD sounds like a winner for storage

 

[stevty2889]

The newer SATA II drives are faster than the 36gb raptors, especialy the ones with 16mb cache. I have 2 WD 160GB SATA II 8mb cache drives in raid-0, and they blow my raid-0 36gb raptors away.

 

[professor1942]

Raptor = waste of money

If the system is for gaming, check out some HD reviews on load times in games; you'll be surprised who's at the top.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Sir Jman
36GB 15k RPM SCSI drive for $100. Everything in between is a waste IMO.
wouldnt I need a special card to run that?

And would the 36gb raptor relaly be a waste? size wise it is very practical but im not sure how the perform... are there and <300gb sata drives with a 16mb cache I could use for system? The 400gb WD sounds like a winner for storage

all you would need is a u160 card, like a adaptec 19160, 29160 or 39160 or a lsiu160 which you can usually pick up for ~$20. mate that with a 36GB 15k 1gen old u320 hdd, get a huge secondary hdd and you wil have the best setup imo too, just like t3h l337 n3wb recommended. and don't believe the people that say scsi is hard, it is not.

 

[Sir Jman]

alright i'll look into it

 

[foodfightr]

wd4000yr = 400gb 7200rpm raptor for $200

 

[Ayah]

4 WD 400GB 16mb cache 7200rpm raid 5.

 

[Bobthelost]

WD4000KD

The YR is the RAID version, and the only difference is in the rated hours (irrelevant) and the TLER (?) that you get on the RAID version, which you don't want BTW.

If money is no object then get a Raptor 150 as the boot disc, or maybe a SCSI solution. But only go for a raptor once you're running SLI with top of the line cards. Otherwise the money is better spent elsewhere.

The 36Gig Raptor is an utter waste of time, other than for server apps it's slower than the 4000KD. The 74 is slightly better than the 4000KD but the 150 is noticably better.

 

[NYTRIDR]

raptors in raid0 offer little to no diff in load times between raid and non-raid setups.

 

[foodfightr]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
WD4000KD

The YR is the RAID version, and the only difference is in the rated hours (irrelevant) and the TLER (?) that you get on the RAID version, which you don't want BTW.

If money is no object then get a Raptor 150 as the boot disc, or maybe a SCSI solution. But only go for a raptor once you're running SLI with top of the line cards. Otherwise the money is better spent elsewhere.

The 36Gig Raptor is an utter waste of time, other than for server apps it's slower than the 4000KD. The 74 is slightly better than the 4000KD but the 150 is noticably better.

1. First, the WD4000YR (that is, the ?Raid Edition 2?) enjoys a 24-hour factory burn-in period versus the WD4000KD (the ?Special Edition 16?)?s 8-hour test. The longer validation cycle increases the chances that a drive destined to suffer an ?infant mortality? of sorts is caught at the factory before it enters distribution.

2. Next, the YR features a longer 5-year warranty more typical of enterprise-oriented drives such as WD?s own Raptor or Seagate?s Cheetah series rather than the shorter 3-year coverage that backs the KD.

 

[Bobthelost]

1) Yes, but it's rather imaterial. If i get a DOA drive then it's annoying but not the end of the world, nor is a drive that dies on me after 18hrs. Bloody annoying but i only start to care after there's something worth losing on it. Where the longer burn in time is irrelevant.

2) The recomendation from the manufaturers is that the YR is not for home users, although this could be just to try and keep the enthusiasts away from cheaper/better drives and/or warranties.

Either would be good, and if you can tell me how to turn of TLER (Which you neglected to mention) then i'd be happy to advise the YR instead.

 

[Sir Jman]

I plan on getting one of the WD 400gb drives for storage, I just want to use something else for apps and the system which is smaller. Are there any smaller drives with 16mb cache?

 

[Bobthelost]

Yes, the 150Gig Raptor

Cache isn't that important, go look at storage review and thier leaderboard and performance tables. Generally the bigger and newer the drive the faster it is. Cach alone is a crap way to select your drive.

The exceptions being drives built for speed, like Raptors and SCSI. Which fit the bill you're describing.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Get a 36GB 15kRPM SCSI. The 150GB Raptor is a waste as a system drive. You're never going to fill up 150GB of apps.

 

[Lasthitlarry]

74GB Raptors are reportedly faster than the 36GB ones

250GB hard drives have good prices at the moment

74GB Raptor: $140
2x 250GB WD SATA 150: $206

 

[Sir Jman]

the 74gb raptor seems like a waste for a system drive as well... how much do they go for used?

 

[Bobthelost]

You want very fast on SATA then the options are 74gig Raptor or 150Gig raptor that's it. You want faster than fast then get SCSI and pay the price for it (and the noise penalty).

If you don't think a raptor is worth it then get a WD4000YR/KD. They are also very fast drives, not far behind the 74 raptor, but have decent speed too.

The 36Gig raptor is utterly pointless, slower than a 7,200RPM drive and tiny storage.

What are you doing with your system? If it's just gaming then you don't need 2 HDs, the main advantage for 2 HDs is the speed increase for Transcoding ime. For my gaming rig i've just got a 74Gig raptor, that's all, data system and programs all in 74 Gig of fairly nippy space.

 

[firewolfsm]

get two 250GB SE16 WD drives in raid 0, it will actually take advantage from the sataII, and it's only $112

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

a 36GB Maxtor Atlas 15k RPM SCSI drive is only about $100. Throw in a controller for ~$20, and you have something much faster than the 74GB Raptor for only $120.