I am building my new rig and I am trying to decide whether to by a single raptor 10,000rpm hd or just stick with a wd 7200rpm. I really hate to wait for things to load, it drives me nuts. When I load a game and that bar is slowly moving along the bottom of the screen for 2-3 minutes it is kind of annoying. So, how much of an improvement in general loading, bootup etc... is there between a single raptor 10,000 and a good 7200rpm? I will have the 7200 regardless for mass storage, this is just a question of whether it is worth putting my OS and whatever current game I'm playing on a raptor.
How much faster is raptor than normal 7200rpm?
- Thread starter nitro28
- Start date
Quiksilver
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2005
- 4,725
- 0
- 71
balane
Senior member
- Dec 15, 2006
- 666
- 0
- 76
I took these tests comparing my 150gb Raptor with 320gb Barracuda.
http://home.comcast.net/~bartalane/hdtach.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~bartalane/hdtune.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~bartalane/hdtach.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~bartalane/hdtune.jpg
- Oct 25, 1999
- 29,547
- 423
- 126
nitro28 the difference depends on the specific way the the computer works at the time.
However as you can see from balane post above, the Raptor has 72.1MB/sec. average rate of transfer vs. 64.4MB/sec. of the 320gb Barracuda.
That means that on average what the the Regular Drive does that takes 60 sec. the Raptor would do it in 53 sec.
However as you can see from balane post above, the Raptor has 72.1MB/sec. average rate of transfer vs. 64.4MB/sec. of the 320gb Barracuda.
That means that on average what the the Regular Drive does that takes 60 sec. the Raptor would do it in 53 sec.
Thank you Jack and balane for your real answers. I've been on this site for a long time and I still can't get over how negative some people are. If you don't want to answer the post then don't answer it.
Sustained transfer rates are a really poor way to measure hard drive performance. Almost all real world use is more dependent on lots of different possibly non-contiguous files. Benchmarks based on I/O scripts generated by real world use are much more relevant. Anand and storage review both test this way.
Anyway the short answer is the raptor isn't any faster than the newest 750 & 1tb drives, but it is 10-20% faster than older, smaller 7200 rpm drives. If your concerned about speed, just get a big fast 7200 rpm drive.
Anyway the short answer is the raptor isn't any faster than the newest 750 & 1tb drives, but it is 10-20% faster than older, smaller 7200 rpm drives. If your concerned about speed, just get a big fast 7200 rpm drive.
balane
Senior member
- Dec 15, 2006
- 666
- 0
- 76
Well since you're the one quoting Storage Review and touting their tests you might also mention that they disagree with your statement saying the Raptor is faster than the larger 7200rpm drives and still have the Raptor firmly atop their Leader Board for Desktop / Single-User. The ONLY drive they mention as a possible alternative is the Hitachi Desktar 7K1000 which costs more but also has more storage.
- Oct 25, 1999
- 29,547
- 423
- 126
The whole Better me turn already ridiculous in this arena.
Most of people who do reviews have No clue about statistics and never heard about Standard Estimate errors and other parameters that actually void the minute differences in many tests,
As an example: To call a computer A faster than B because A scored 23900 and B scored 23850 is ?Charlatanism? at best.
So yeah, the Raptor is 10% faster, and it is Cool to tell your friends: "Dude I do not use one of these "stinky" regular HDs, I use Raptor".
In reality, the vast majority of the "Raptor Guys" mainly gain Social Desirability.
Most of people who do reviews have No clue about statistics and never heard about Standard Estimate errors and other parameters that actually void the minute differences in many tests,
As an example: To call a computer A faster than B because A scored 23900 and B scored 23850 is ?Charlatanism? at best.
So yeah, the Raptor is 10% faster, and it is Cool to tell your friends: "Dude I do not use one of these "stinky" regular HDs, I use Raptor".
In reality, the vast majority of the "Raptor Guys" mainly gain Social Desirability.
balane
Senior member
- Dec 15, 2006
- 666
- 0
- 76
In truth it's just the opposite. The norm is a bunch of people who don't own Raptors bad mouthing them continually. The negative force, the people most often spewing rhetoric comes from the "Non-Raptor Guys."
I only recently bought a Raptor because I got an amazing deal on it ($99 for a 150gb RaptorX) and I wanted a fast drive. I didn't notice how often people who don't own Raptors go out of their way to be negative toward them until I owned one. I don't think I've ever heard a Raptor owner say how kick ass his hard drive is but I can guarantee I've heard a ton of people tell him how badly it sucks and what a waste of money it was. Notice how most find any excuse they can to void the continuous benchmarks that show the Raptor is better? It's a strange phenomena. Your assessment is correct, you just need to flip-flop the applicable party.
Raptor shines with benchies. In the real world, you may see a 1 to 2 sec drop in boot time if you use a stopwatch. Under normal use (double blind tests), most will have a difficult time identifying a Raptor vs the latest 7200 rpm drives from top vendors such as Hitachi, Seagate, and Samsung. The Seagate 7200.11 is affordable and widely available at many retailers. Samsung's best drive tends to run cooler thanks to 320GB per platter.
1000GB Samsung with 3 platters. Should run a little faster than the 7200.11 drive. GOOG Samsung HD103UJ. Dunno if there's any review available at this time.
Found one:
http://www.tomshardware.com/20...with_a_bang/page6.html
Found one:
http://www.tomshardware.com/20...with_a_bang/page6.html
Nice. But the wd's still look like the best for htpc usage in the tb range. The wdaa160 looks useful for a secondary/test pc. And the seagates, well, I guess they'll do in a pinch.
- Oct 25, 1999
- 29,547
- 423
- 126
These Numbers demonstrate the point in my previous post
Quote from Results: http://episteme.arstechnica.co...9309975/m/989001928831
Game with - Raptor --- Caviar
Bioshock - 35 --- 33
Call of Juarez - 41 --- 42
Doom 3 - 28 --- 28
Far Cry - 23 --- 25
Fear - 29 --- 21 *The only statistically significant difference.
Half-Life 2 - 29 --- 26
MoH Pacific Assault - 17 --- 17
Quake 4 - 37 --- 35
Stalker 31 --- 23
End of Quote.
If one is technological, scientific orientated (as oppose to decide upon technological performance by wishful thinking or and Social considerations).
Some who is familiar with statically use for scientific measurement can see in a case like this that the difference is Not significant
However, I ran Paired samples t-test
The outcome indicates that the difference between the two columns is very far away from being significant.
The average difference is 2.4 Sec. it has to be at least an average of more than 6 sec. to be significant,
The above is related to average. On the other hand if someone spent the whole day loading and unloading "Fear" he would gain a whooping 8 sec each time he loads the game.
Not bad at all, 100 times a day loading fear and you save 800 sec. than is more than 12 min.
But hey wait a minute it is the Caviar that does better.:shocked:
So, save your money for something better (or in this Holydays, consider contribution to the needy).
Quote from Results: http://episteme.arstechnica.co...9309975/m/989001928831
Game with - Raptor --- Caviar
Bioshock - 35 --- 33
Call of Juarez - 41 --- 42
Doom 3 - 28 --- 28
Far Cry - 23 --- 25
Fear - 29 --- 21 *The only statistically significant difference.
Half-Life 2 - 29 --- 26
MoH Pacific Assault - 17 --- 17
Quake 4 - 37 --- 35
Stalker 31 --- 23
End of Quote.
If one is technological, scientific orientated (as oppose to decide upon technological performance by wishful thinking or and Social considerations).
Some who is familiar with statically use for scientific measurement can see in a case like this that the difference is Not significant
However, I ran Paired samples t-test
The outcome indicates that the difference between the two columns is very far away from being significant.
The average difference is 2.4 Sec. it has to be at least an average of more than 6 sec. to be significant,
The above is related to average. On the other hand if someone spent the whole day loading and unloading "Fear" he would gain a whooping 8 sec each time he loads the game.
Not bad at all, 100 times a day loading fear and you save 800 sec. than is more than 12 min.
But hey wait a minute it is the Caviar that does better.:shocked:
So, save your money for something better (or in this Holydays, consider contribution to the needy).
Try those same tests against the Seagate 7200.11 or Samsung Spinpoint F1. For those less informed, game loading is all about read transfer performance. Average Raptor read speed is 21% slower than Spinpoint F1.
http://www.tomshardware.com/20...with_a_bang/page9.html
- Oct 25, 1999
- 29,547
- 423
- 126
LOL, may be the Raptor is popular because there is a character with a similar name in the Rugrats serious.
http://www.gametrailers.com/pl.../usermovies/61907.html
:shocked::evil::roll::thumbsup:
http://www.gametrailers.com/pl.../usermovies/61907.html
:shocked::evil::roll::thumbsup:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter