Buying retired WD Velociraptors... Smart or foolish?

[cbn]

For anyone considering buying a VelociRaptor (either Used or NOS/New Pull, both of which can be found very cheap) here are some noise and power consumption figures done by Tech Report:

http://techreport.com/review/14964/velociraptor-redux-now-with-final-firmware/13

(VR150 is the fourth generation Raptor aka "VelociRaptor" than comes as a 2.5" drive with a 3.5" heatsink/adapter called "IcePack". WD1500ADFD is the third generation Raptor which comes as a 3.5" drive)

(Notice the significant differences in noise, idle and seek power consumption despite both generations of Raptors having two platters for this test.)

 

[cbn]

Just finished some preliminary testing of 5th generation 160GB Raptor (160GB using a short stroked 2.5" 200GB platter, 32MB cache) vs. WD1600AAJS-75M0A0 (160GB using a short stroked 3.5" 500GB platter, 8MB cache according to HD platter database here)

Using HD Tune here is what I got averaged over 5 runs:

5th generation 160GB Raptor: ~123 MB/s, 7.3 ms access time

WD1600AAJS: 87 MB/s, 15.8 ms access time

So definitely the Raptor is much faster than the 7200 rpm 160GB (using a short stroked 3.5" 500GB platter)

P.S. Would be interesting at this point to also compare a 4th generation Raptor (platter capacity decreases from 200GB to 160GB and cache decreases from 32MB to 16MB compared to the fifth generation Raptor).

4th generation 160GB Raptor is giving me ~99 MB/s, ~7.2 ms access time in HD tune.

So slower than the 5th generation 160GB Raptor, but still faster in average sequential speed than the short stroked 160GB 7200 rpm drive based on the 500GB platter.

 

[kwikgta]

I have six 500 gb velociraptors in Raid 0. They pull 886 mb/sec transfer time and 5.4 ms seek time in HD Tune.

 

[tweakboy]

Get SSD youll never go back,,, gl

 

[cbn]

Since buying my 4th generation (16MB cache) and 5th generation (32MB cache) 160GB Raptors ~ 6 months ago, I do have to say the performance as an OS drive definitely degrades (from a subjective standpoint) once they begin filling up. I attribute this to the increased distance the read/write arm needs to go (during paging out) as more data is written.

However, if used strictly for OS with maybe some bookmarks and other incidentals saved off (browser, adobe flash,etc) performance during paging out remains quite good. Of course, in this scenario most of the Raptor's capacity will go unused.

P.S. For anyone contemplating a very low cost refurb/rebuild here is what the current pricing on low capacity SSD and white label fourth generation Raptors looks like:

---White label fourth generation 80GB Raptor (short stroked from 160GB) = $14.99 or best offer shipped (from Goharddrive.com on ebay)

---Hextron X1 60GB 2.5" SSD (Silicon Motion SM2246 controller with MLC NAND)= $23.59 shipped.
---Kingfast F6 32GB 2.5" SSD (Jmicron JMF608 controller with MLC NAND) = $17.99 shipped

(Virtual Larry posted benchmarks of both the above SSDs in this post)

SIDE NOTE: Going by memory Windows 7 Home fully updated with Firefox and MS Security Essentials added takes up ~30GB after doing disk clean-up. In contrast, Windows 10 Pro* fully updated with Firefox added takes up only 17GB after doing disk clean-up. So for very low cost Windows 10 rebuilds/builds that 32GB Kingfast F6 is a workable option.

*MS Defender is included with Windows 10 so MS Security essntials doesn't need to be added.

 

[XavierMace]

IMO, there comes a point where it's not worth it just to save $20. If you truly can't afford $20, you have bigger problems than buying a new drive. You can get name brand 120Gb SSD's for $40.

 

[cbn]

IMO, there comes a point where it's not worth it just to save $20. If you truly can't afford $20, you have bigger problems than buying a new drive. You can get name brand 120Gb SSD's for $40.

For old machine refurb/rebuilds, I think saving the $20 can work for at least two reasons:

1. If the machine is just used as a secondary browsing terminal (or some other very light usage such a streaming steam games) then it doesn't need much more than 32GB SSD if using Windows 10.

2. For a ~$40 budget a $17.99 shipped 32GB SSD plus a $17.95 shipped NOS 320GB 3.5" HDD yields more total storage than a 120GB SSD. Or alternatively, for the person who only needs around ~120GB total storage a $17.99 shipped 32GB SSD could be added to the old machine's existing 80GB hard drive. Then the remaining $22 of the $40 budget could be spent on other upgrades such as a $15 shipped Q6600 processor, $20 AR free shipping GT 710 video card, or perhaps a $10 AR free shipping Power color HD5450 plus a $5 shipped E8400 processor and $7 shipped HP or Dell brand 2 x 1 GB DDR2.

 

[cbn]

Assuming the starting machine for rebuilding/refurbing was a Windows 10 HP or Dell with low end C2D, GMA 3100, 2GB RAM (with two open DIMM slots), 80 GB HDD here is what I would spend the $40 on:

1. $5 E8400
2. $7 2 x 1GB DDR2
3. $10 AR Power color HD5450
4. $18 Kingfast F6 32GB

That would yield a machine with the following overall spec:

E8400
Power Color HD5450
4GB RAM
32GB Kingfast F6 SSD
80GB HDD

(A fairly balanced combination)

Or I might go with this combo of parts:

1. $15 Q6600 or Q8300
2. $7 2 x 1GB DDR2
3. $18 Kingfast F6 32GB

That would yield a machine with the following overall spec:

Q6600 or Q8300
GMA 3100 (works well for browsing when using quad core)
4GB RAM
32GB Kingfast F6 SSD
80GB HDD

 

[VirtualLarry]

Since we're talking about upgrading older Core2 rigs, what would you do with:

A slimline micro-ATX rig, with G41 chipset / VGA-out, two DDR3 slots (max 4GB per slot), with one 4GB DDR3-1333 stick, running at 800, with an E5200. The mobo only has two SATA(II) ports (ICH7, no AHCI), and an IDE port. It has a SATA DVD-RW, and a 500GB WD HDD that's five years old (pre-flood).

Options:
GT610 single-slot LP card: $35
GT710 single-slot LP card: $45-50
Q8400 quad-core CPU: $15
additional 4GB DDR3-1333: $20
120GB refurb MLC SSD: $35
240GB TLC SSD: $60
2-port PCI-E x1 SATA6G controller: $10

I was thinking of starting with the Q8400 and the additional 4GB of RAM.

The SSD would be nice, but then they would have to lose the 500GB, or add the controller card to have enough ports for the SSD in addition.

The video card is the biggest question mark. PC is used for watching videos and browsing. Would the Q8400 be capable of watching all 1080P web video codecs / formats without GPU assist? Or would a lower-end GPU be a necessity for that? (I don't think either of those cards handle VP9, but I think that they do H.264.)

 

[cbn]

Since we're talking about upgrading older Core2 rigs, what would you do with:

A slimline micro-ATX rig, with G41 chipset / VGA-out, two DDR3 slots (max 4GB per slot), with one 4GB DDR3-1333 stick, running at 800, with an E5200. The mobo only has two SATA(II) ports (ICH7, no AHCI), and an IDE port. It has a SATA DVD-RW, and a 500GB WD HDD that's five years old (pre-flood).

Options:
GT610 single-slot LP card: $35
GT710 single-slot LP card: $45-50
Q8400 quad-core CPU: $15
additional 4GB DDR3-1333: $20
120GB refurb MLC SSD: $35
240GB TLC SSD: $60
2-port PCI-E x1 SATA6G controller: $10

I was thinking of starting with the Q8400 and the additional 4GB of RAM.

The SSD would be nice, but then they would have to lose the 500GB, or add the controller card to have enough ports for the SSD in addition.

The video card is the biggest question mark. PC is used for watching videos and browsing. Would the Q8400 be capable of watching all 1080P web video codecs / formats without GPU assist? Or would a lower-end GPU be a necessity for that? (I don't think either of those cards handle VP9, but I think that they do H.264.)

I think the Q8400 is a good idea.

For example, In the past I noticed my Q6700 scrolls webpages smoother than my E6550 when both are using the GMA 3100 iGPU. Not sure if it is because of the extra single thread of the Q6700 or more likely because the Q6700 also has two more CPU cores for handing video happening on the extra webpages that I have open while I am simultaneously browsing (scrolling) another page? (GMA 3100 does not have any video decode on it).

And the extra RAM will goes along with that too.

P.S. How much of the 500GB hard drive is he using?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think the Q8400 is a good idea.

P.S. How much of the 500GB hard drive is he using?

I don't know, I haven't actually looked at the rig in a few years. I quoted them $100 for the upgrade, which means, I'll probably do the quad-core, the 4GB DDR3, and the video card. Then, if they want to go SSD, we can talk about cloning or fresh re-install, and the costs. (Currently has Win7 64-bit, but probably could use a re-install by now.)

 

[cbn]

Virtual Larry,

I took the video card out of my Q6700 4GB desktop and running Windows 10 on just the GMA 3100 iGPU the following you tube video @ 1080p did pretty well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v2L2UGZJAM

(Some parts were not perfectly smooth, but certainly very watchable)

Also, I notice when scrolling webages with firefox in Windows 10 I am getting fairly even activity spread across all four CPU cores (measured by MSI Afterburner).

 

[cbn]

As an update to this thread recently I took the 160GB fourth generation Velociraptor (WD1600HLFS) out of my Core 2 SFF machine and replaced it with a WD5000AAKS 500GB 3.5" hard drive.

I must say that even though the 500GB HDD has two 375GB platters compared to the single 160GB platter on the Raptor it definitely feels noticeably slower.

P.S. Both the WD 500GB and 160GB Raptor have 16MB cache.

 

[sdifox]

Then maybe you should have bought a ssd.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

As an update to this thread recently I took the 160GB fourth generation Velociraptor (WD1600HLFS) out of my Core 2 SFF machine and replaced it with a WD5000AAKS 500GB 3.5" hard drive.

I must say that even though the 500GB HDD has two 375GB platters compared to the single 160GB platter on the Raptor it definitely feels noticeably slower.

P.S. Both the WD 500GB and 160GB Raptor have 16MB cache.

The platters are physically larger. Areal density is probably similar. Linear density X rpm is what gets you sequential speed.

Also, "feels slower" is bs. Benchmarks, man. Put up or shut up.

 

[cbn]

The platters are physically larger. Areal density is probably similar. Linear density X rpm is what gets you sequential speed.

Also, "feels slower" is bs. Benchmarks, man. Put up or shut up.

Here were some benchmark results I posted up earlier using a 3.5" drive with 160GB short stroked from a 500GB platter and my 4th and 5th generation 160GB Raptors:

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...smart-or-foolish.2437926/page-3#post-37987121

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...smart-or-foolish.2437926/page-4#post-38028840

Just finished some preliminary testing of 5th generation 160GB Raptor (160GB using a short stroked 2.5" 200GB platter, 32MB cache) vs. WD1600AAJS-75M0A0 (160GB using a short stroked 3.5" 500GB platter, 8MB cache according to HD platter database here)

Using HD Tune here is what I got averaged over 5 runs:

5th generation 160GB Raptor: ~123 MB/s, 7.3 ms access time

WD1600AAJS: 87 MB/s, 15.8 ms access time

So definitely the Raptor is much faster than the 7200 rpm 160GB (using a short stroked 3.5" 500GB platter)

P.S. Would be interesting at this point to also compare a 4th generation Raptor (platter capacity decreases from 200GB to 160GB and cache decreases from 32MB to 16MB compared to the fifth generation Raptor).

4th generation 160GB Raptor is giving me ~99 MB/s, ~7.2 ms access time in HD tune.

So slower than the 5th generation 160GB Raptor, but still faster in average sequential speed than the short stroked 160GB 7200 rpm drive based on the 500GB platter.

And here are the HD tune read results (averaged over 5 runs) of my WD5000AAKS (500GB short stroked from two 375GB platters, 16MB cache):

89.14 MB/s, 13.52 ms access time

So the Raptors are indeed much faster in access time.......not as fast as an SSD obviously, but fast enough that I notice the difference.

 

[cbn]

Correction to post #88 and #91.......

My WD5000AAKS actually has two 320 to 334GB platters (not two 375GB platters) according to HD platter data base:

http://rml527.blogspot.com/2010/10/hdd-platter-database-western-digital-35_26.html

 

[cbn]

HD Tune results (average of five runs) of two 160GB fourth generation Raptors in RAID 0:

191 MB/s read, 7.2 ms access time.

 

[VirtualLarry]

HD Tune results (average of five runs) of two 160GB fourth generation Raptors in RAID 0:

191 MB/s read, 7.2 ms access time.

While that is a formidable benchmark, in HDD terms (although likely matched by a modern 4TB 7200RPM HDD), even a mediocre SATAII SSD blows that away. (To say nothing of a performance PCI-E M.2 SSD.)

As far as cost/benefit goes, that might be another question, if you could get 2x 160GB Raptor HDDs for $5-10 ea., whilst an SSD of similar size, is closer to $70 these days.

 

[cbn]

As far as cost/benefit goes, that might be another question, if you could get 2x 160GB Raptor HDDs for $5-10 ea., whilst an SSD of similar size, is closer to $70 these days.

Yeah, if the price is right they may not be a bad deal although I'll bet many of the ones currently on ebay have high hours on them.....and as far as the White label ones go (which I see advertised as new) we now know at least one company resets hours as a standard procedure.

https://www.teleplan.com/2015/03/09...o-you-and-includes-sell-and-buy-side-options/

Companies looking to buy HDDs from Teleplan can purchase either White Label (factory returned Hard Disk Drives, tested and data-wiped to stringent white label industry standards with no OEM identification) or refurbished out of warranty HDDs (tested and refurbished and sold in “As-is” condition as HDD OEM standards). Teleplan can supply many form factors across multiple capacities such as 160Gb, 250Gb, 500Gb, 1Tb and beyond.

Our white Label drives are tested for read and write performance across the full media whilst smart logs and user data are cleared and reset. OEM labels are removed and any electronic identification removed. We have the capability for personalization of bespoke branding and packaging requirements for customers with larger consistent volumes.

Our refurbished drives do not have their SMART logs cleared in order to retain visibility of their true lifespan expectancy. The drives are fully data-wiped and a final random blank check is carried out. You can be assured of the highest quality products equivalent to OEM standards.

 

[cbn]

While that is a formidable benchmark, in HDD terms (although likely matched by a modern 4TB 7200RPM HDD), even a mediocre SATAII SSD blows that away. (To say nothing of a performance PCI-E M.2 SSD.)

Just thinking about RAID 0 more.....

I wonder how two 60/64GB dram-less 2.5" MLC drives in RAID 0 would do?

And how does this compare in cost to a single 120GB/128GB 2.5" MLC drive? to a single 120GB/128GB 2.5" planar TLC or 3D TLC drive?

EDIT: Did some pricing checking and a 60GB Kingfast F6 2.5" SSD is $27 shipped (from china) on ebay. Meanwhile, a 120GB MydigitalSSD BPX (NVMe PCIe 3.0 x 4 with Phison E7 and 15nm MLC)......which I didn't mention above as a comparison point......is $66 shipped (from the US).

 

[Luke Maguire]

IMO, there comes a point where it's not worth it just to save $20. If you truly can't afford $20, you have bigger problems than buying a new drive. You can get name brand 120Gb SSD's for $40.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark-review.com