DELL Western Digital 80GB Raptor SATA 10k HD?

[BigCoolJesus]

sorry, you were right about the platters, but the one thing that helps is the 16mb of cache

i know the raptors speed, and i know how they preform (had one myself, and i was a bit disappointed, espacially for the price), and i dont find it at all hard to believe that the 7K500 performed just as well as a raptor (im talking real world, such as acessing huge files, winraring something, etc. not synthetic tests)

and i understand what you mean for access time, but im just telling you what i have been told by every person who has used a 7K500 (including individuals on forums like these)


when i get some time ill look for a review or two

 

[DRavisher]

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus
sorry, you were right about the platters, but the one thing that helps is the 16mb of cache

i know the raptors speed, and i know how they preform (had one myself, and i was a bit disappointed, espacially for the price), and i dont find it at all hard to believe that the 7K500 performed just as well as a raptor (im talking real world, such as acessing huge files, winraring something, etc. not synthetic tests)

and i understand what you mean for access time, but im just telling you what i have been told by every person who has used a 7K500 (including individuals on forums like these)


when i get some time ill look for a review or two

Things like accessing huge files (and i guess to a certain extent, winraring, though i'm not sure about that) likes high transfer rates. But as a system drive it seems like a low latency is much more important, and 16MiB cache or large platters or whatever cant compete with 50% faster rotational speed. And I just did some crude math on this and it would be theoretically impossible for this drive to be as good as the Raptor in seek times, at least peak performance...

 

[BigCoolJesus]

I know the numbers and everything, and i dont really believe it much myself, im just telling you what i have been told by 30+ people, in a real world performance (ie, actually using the drive on a day to day basis with gaming and video encoding, etc)

you can leave it at that, as im not gonna make an argument out of this, and im not going to attempt to convince you, im just telling you what has been told me


I also dont want to get to far in the discussion, as up until now ive held an unbiased opinion, but if i had to keep talking about this my hate for the raptor drives would become apparent (i owned one, and i hated it, it was a piece of junk, it didnt have any performance gain over my brothers 7200rpm drive, espacially in gaming and loading windows)

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: Sunner
Not saying you're wrong, just that they are, or they're using flawed testing methods, which very often happens with printed mags for whatever reason.
Primary reason why I've stopped reading printed computer mags these days, even though I usually prefer a printed mag as opposed to a website.

no, im not talking about just the mag, im talking about a bunch of other reviews too. The mag is where i first heard it, and since i doubted it myself, i did some looking, and it turned out to be correct (Hitachi put a muge ass amount of data on each platter. 500GB / 4 platters = 125GB per platter / 62.5GB per side)

Think about it logically.
The seek time is direct result of the time it takes for the head to reach a random place on the platter.
Even if you packed 5 TB per platter, the platter would still be as large, and at a given RPM it would still take exactly the same time to reach that point, no?
Of course this isn't absolute, other things will affect the end result, but not to the degree that a 7.2K drive will ever approach the seek time of a 10K drive, there's just too large an advantage to a 50% higher rotational speed.

Got any links for any of those reviews?

And come to think of it, the 7K500 is a 5 platter design, that is, 100 GB/platter, which Seagate has surpassed some time ago.

Uh...you are telling us to think about it logically? How about you try that.

"Even if you packed 5 TB per platter, the platter would still be as large, and at a given RPM it would still take exactly the same time to reach that point, no?"

Think about that statement for a second....ok? Now, do you see how you are wrong? If two platters are the same size physically, but packs data more densely, then the head doesn;'t have to travel as far because for every rotation, it is passing more data than the less dense hard drive.

So I think you are just confused.

 

[DRavisher]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Uh...you are telling us to think about it logically? How about you try that.

"Even if you packed 5 TB per platter, the platter would still be as large, and at a given RPM it would still take exactly the same time to reach that point, no?"

Think about that statement for a second....ok? Now, do you see how you are wrong? If two platters are the same size physically, but packs data more densely, then the head doesn;'t have to travel as far because for every rotation, it is passing more data than the less dense hard drive.

So I think you are just confused.

Nope. He is right. If you are at one location of the platter and you need to access something on a completely different part of the platter, you are still theoretically restricted (theoretical as in it is not at all possible to attain anything better) to a higher access time than the Raptor (even with 10000000000000000TB at 3,5" and 7200RPM, just to make it clear that from my POV it does not in any way matter how high density the platters have). You could access files faster if they were all neatly arranget in the order you happen to want to access them, but as a system drive that wouldn't be very likely.

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: g33k

Originally posted by: The Pentium Guy

Originally posted by: MaverickDBZ
I already did, whats wrong with RAID 0?????11

Everything. See the Anandtech article about Raptors on Raid. .000001% performance increase, 200% chance of all your data being lost.

The positive is that Raid 0 doubles your storage.

QFT, I dont use raid for speed, I use it for storage.

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: CreativeTom

Originally posted by: MaverickDBZ
I already did, whats wrong with RAID 0?????11

lol, such a shame you waste your time by putting them in a RAID0 configuration. Read around some forums and some technical benchmarks, RAID0 is only gonna make a nominal diference in video editing, for everything else the diference is not even enough for you to notice.

Oh and by the way I think you got jacked up dude, those are not 80GB Raptors since they have never been produced by WD, E-mail the people at WD and they will tell you the same thing.

You can argue with me all you want, but if you do I warn you that I have proof that those drives are acutally just 7200 Rpm 80GB drives and are actually only a regular old caviar drive.

How do you explain this?

WD's site

Owned.

 

[shoRunner]

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus
No, im talking abouy access time also

CPU (the magazine) review the 500GB one, and when pair next to a raptor, it did just as well, and sometimes even better, due to the high data per platter density (the more data you can squeeze on a platter, the faster it gets accessed)

im excited for when they come out

where are any reviews showing this. and its been out for some time now

and just like everyone has already said. there is just no way a 7200rpm hard drive will ever have faster seek times or access times, since it simply just not spinning as fast. its impossible. doesn't matter how dense it is. and if you check manufacturer's specs it will confirm this, 8.5ms vs 4.5ms.

and any ways this hard drive is not even the most dense per platter drive. the 7200.8 are with 133MB platters. this hard drive uses 5 100MB platters

and after reading some reviews, the 7k500 has an average transfer rate around 52MB/s were as the raptor is around 73MB/s, so really in no way is this hard drive faster in a benchmark perspective. DONE

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: Sunner
Not saying you're wrong, just that they are, or they're using flawed testing methods, which very often happens with printed mags for whatever reason.
Primary reason why I've stopped reading printed computer mags these days, even though I usually prefer a printed mag as opposed to a website.

no, im not talking about just the mag, im talking about a bunch of other reviews too. The mag is where i first heard it, and since i doubted it myself, i did some looking, and it turned out to be correct (Hitachi put a muge ass amount of data on each platter. 500GB / 4 platters = 125GB per platter / 62.5GB per side)

Think about it logically.
The seek time is direct result of the time it takes for the head to reach a random place on the platter.
Even if you packed 5 TB per platter, the platter would still be as large, and at a given RPM it would still take exactly the same time to reach that point, no?
Of course this isn't absolute, other things will affect the end result, but not to the degree that a 7.2K drive will ever approach the seek time of a 10K drive, there's just too large an advantage to a 50% higher rotational speed.

Got any links for any of those reviews?

And come to think of it, the 7K500 is a 5 platter design, that is, 100 GB/platter, which Seagate has surpassed some time ago.

Uh...you are telling us to think about it logically? How about you try that.

"Even if you packed 5 TB per platter, the platter would still be as large, and at a given RPM it would still take exactly the same time to reach that point, no?"

Think about that statement for a second....ok? Now, do you see how you are wrong? If two platters are the same size physically, but packs data more densely, then the head doesn;'t have to travel as far because for every rotation, it is passing more data than the less dense hard drive.

So I think you are just confused.

:roll:

Thanks for saving me the time DRavisher.

Exc, did you notice the word random?
Which happens to be the vast majority of accesses in everyday use.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: DRavisher

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Uh...you are telling us to think about it logically? How about you try that.

"Even if you packed 5 TB per platter, the platter would still be as large, and at a given RPM it would still take exactly the same time to reach that point, no?"

Think about that statement for a second....ok? Now, do you see how you are wrong? If two platters are the same size physically, but packs data more densely, then the head doesn;'t have to travel as far because for every rotation, it is passing more data than the less dense hard drive.

So I think you are just confused.

Nope. He is right. If you are at one location of the platter and you need to access something on a completely different part of the platter, you are still theoretically restricted (theoretical as in it is not at all possible to attain anything better) to a higher access time than the Raptor (even with 10000000000000000TB at 3,5" and 7200RPM, just to make it clear that from my POV it does not in any way matter how high density the platters have). You could access files faster if they were all neatly arranget in the order you happen to want to access them, but as a system drive that wouldn't be very likely.

This explanation still doesn't work for me. The drive with the less dense platters would still have to "go further" even randomly, to access the same data...right? That is what would make sense to me.

Note: I am not trying to say that the 7200rpm drive could have a faster seek time exactly....I just thought that if the platter was more dense, the head wouldn't have to move as far regardless of whether the access is random or not.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: Sunner
Not saying you're wrong, just that they are, or they're using flawed testing methods, which very often happens with printed mags for whatever reason.
Primary reason why I've stopped reading printed computer mags these days, even though I usually prefer a printed mag as opposed to a website.

no, im not talking about just the mag, im talking about a bunch of other reviews too. The mag is where i first heard it, and since i doubted it myself, i did some looking, and it turned out to be correct (Hitachi put a muge ass amount of data on each platter. 500GB / 4 platters = 125GB per platter / 62.5GB per side)

Think about it logically.
The seek time is direct result of the time it takes for the head to reach a random place on the platter.
Even if you packed 5 TB per platter, the platter would still be as large, and at a given RPM it would still take exactly the same time to reach that point, no?
Of course this isn't absolute, other things will affect the end result, but not to the degree that a 7.2K drive will ever approach the seek time of a 10K drive, there's just too large an advantage to a 50% higher rotational speed.

Got any links for any of those reviews?

And come to think of it, the 7K500 is a 5 platter design, that is, 100 GB/platter, which Seagate has surpassed some time ago.

Uh...you are telling us to think about it logically? How about you try that.

"Even if you packed 5 TB per platter, the platter would still be as large, and at a given RPM it would still take exactly the same time to reach that point, no?"

Think about that statement for a second....ok? Now, do you see how you are wrong? If two platters are the same size physically, but packs data more densely, then the head doesn;'t have to travel as far because for every rotation, it is passing more data than the less dense hard drive.

So I think you are just confused.

:roll:

Thanks for saving me the time DRavisher.

Exc, did you notice the word random?
Which happens to be the vast majority of accesses in everyday use.

Yes, of course I did. And of course I know that random access is what happens most often on a daily basis, but I explained myself above.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Sunner
Exc, did you notice the word random?
Which happens to be the vast majority of accesses in everyday use.

Yes, of course I did. And of course I know that random access is what happens most often on a daily basis, but I explained myself above.

We were talking about seek/access times, which is always a random access, otherwise it's not really a seek, is it?

We had established long ago that STR goes up with increased density.

 

[hans007]

actually seek time is slower on higher density drives when they first come out. it is harder for a head to pin point an exact spot on a denser disk. so 2 7200rpm drives one with higher density all else being equal, probably the one with less density will have the same seek time (this is assuming they both have same seek algorithms ncq etc).

thats why most 10k and 15k drives have low density. 10k and 15k drives use 2.5" disks. there are 160 gb laptop drives out there, which only uses 1-2 platters. but no 160 gb raptor with 2 platters because it runs at 10k. it is too hard to seek at that density.

anyhow, if you have a point, in say one of the middle cylinders on a certain track of disk, the disk head will have to actuate the arm and move there will be faster on a 10k disk. think of it like a record. once the arm moves to the middle of the disk (whcih would be the same on both drives), the roration of the disk at 50% more speed, would give the 10k disk an advantage.

its not usually a 50% advantage because total seek time is the arm moving to the particular cylinder and the time it takes for the part of that track to get under the head. since the arm moving part is the same amount of time, only the rotating part is where you get your performance advantage.


also since the 10k drives have 2.5" diameter disks instead of 3.5" once, they probably gain some arm moving time there. so that has to be accounted for.

the only way the 3.5" 7200rpm drive beats the 2.5"10k is if say the 3.5" drives density was so high , that you could fit all of the capacity of the 2.5" on a narrow section of say the outer rings of the 3.5" disk. that way you would barely ever have to move the arm, assuming the drive was not fragmented.

then again that is never going to happen.

 

[bamacre]

Well, I got two of them coming, and they'll soon be on ebay as well.

Linky

I'll pull both and stick in a 160 to replace.

 

[MaverickDBZ]

Did you really pay $1,374.00 for all that or is it an estimate?


There great hardrives so far I'm having so much fun with them! Woot! Fast mother f-ers!