Is the WD Raptor really worth it?

[JBT]

Yes I agree the retails are a rip... The secure connect feature is nice if your worried about snapping the SATA connector but other than that.... Save your self ~50 clams and grab a large IDE drive hot deal and the Raptor.

 

[Blain]

If you've looked at the specs for the Raptors and read reviews, and still have to ask if they are worth it...
The Raptors are NOT for you.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Given the OCZ thread... if LL ram is worth it to you, get a Raptor 74 as a boot/system/game drive, and a Seagate 7200.8 for mass media storage

That's exactly what I did. the RAID review was only saying you get no boost from RAID, whilst the Raptor itself is a very good upgrade. There is a noticeable difference in speed during drive access. The hard drive is the biggest bottleneck in computers today, with memory, CPU's, etc being many times faster comparatively.

 

[imported_sphinx]

Originally posted by: piromaneak

(Must be because im so crusty i remember the days where any programs below the top 5 you used had to get axed to save space on those 1 gig drives lol)

I remember having to do that. Boy, those were the days. lol

 

[Alex]

IT IS SO WORTH IT!

 

[tallman45]

If you need a HD get it, if you are looking for an upgrade from a slower drive or even one with only 2mb cache, then get it. HDD performance is key to a systems performance and the slowest component.

I picked up one of the Maxtor 250gb 16mb cache drives last week from the Staples PM to Compusa for under $80 and the difference is quite noticeable compared to a WD 80GB JB 8mb cache drive I used to use for the OS.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Given the OCZ thread... if LL ram is worth it to you, get a Raptor 74 as a boot/system/game drive, and a Seagate 7200.8 for mass media storage

That's exactly what I did. the RAID review was only saying you get no boost from RAID, whilst the Raptor itself is a very good upgrade. There is a noticeable difference in speed during drive access. The hard drive is the biggest bottleneck in computers today, with memory, CPU's, etc being many times faster comparatively.

There is virtually no difference in graphs. There is no tangible difference between Raptors and regular ATA drives unless you are transferring huge (1+ gig) files.

WHat reviews are you reading. The 36.7 Gig Raptor is BARELY faster than the standard 7200RPM Drives. THe Generation 2 Raptor (74gig) is slightly faster than that in everything. Both of these solutions as well as ANY ATA solution is a far cry from SCSI.

No offense but you really do have no idea what you are talking about.

There are PCI SCSI cards, and there are multiple PCI-X SCSI cards ranging from 64bit PCI to full blown 64bit 133mhz PCI-X. There are also different types of SCSI you have U160 U320 etc...) SATA is NO WHERE NEAR the level that SCSI performs, it is incomparable. Any card you take you will see noticable performance gains over any ATA based solution.


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another thing is with the NCQ on the seagate 16Mb drives, the NCQ is not operational on any motherboard yet as this is not yet supported, and this feature is very dependant on what you intend to do on you rig..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No. NCQ is indeed enabled and has been enabled on certain motherboards for the best part of 6-8months. These chipsets which support is are 915 series 925 series, and Nforce 4. Im not sure is SiS or Via has adopted it yet. However it most certainly is supported. You are correct in the 2nd part as it is not useful for games and really shines during multi tasking (be it light or heavy) as NCQ simply rearranges that tasks the HDD must perform so instead of going across platter and spinning all the way around to get the other one, it will get the 2nd one first and the 1st one 2nd.

I never said SCSI was for the average user, nor will i ever say it. However the OP wants to make his system better. By going to Raptors you will notice virtually no performance gain. Raptors are a small step. If he wants tangible performance gains the next step up is going to SCSI.

Raptors in RAID 0

Notice the Average 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda is on par with it a lot of the time, and even surpasses the 1st gen.

-Kevin

 

[quakefiend420]

i have a 36gig raptor in my system...it makes quite a difference...i went from a 7200rpm 8mb maxtor drive...my boot times with win2k dropped from 1:30 to about 45 seconds...load times on games is a lot quicker as well...but space isnt a concern for me...i have a file server that handles mass storage duties...all i need is enough space for my os and apps...so just like everyone else says...it all depends on what you're doing and whether the speed increase is worth it to you

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i have a 36gig raptor in my system...it makes quite a difference...i went from a 7200rpm 8mb maxtor drive...my boot times with win2k dropped from 1:30 to about 45 seconds...load times on games is a lot quicker as well...but space isnt a concern for me...i have a file server that handles mass storage duties...all i need is enough space for my os and apps...so just like everyone else says...it all depends on what you're doing and whether the speed increase is worth it to you

I find that very hard to believe considering:

[L=Link] The first generation (36.7gig) Raptor is slower in loading performance than the average 7200RPM Seagate/WD/Maxtor drive.

If you had a 45 second drop, there was something else wrong with your HDD, or you needed a defrag REALLY bad. Moving to a gen 1 raptor will not do that.

Theoretically there is a difference. Realistically there is virtually none.

-Kevin

 

[MrControversial]

I opted out of the Raptor for two 160GB SATA NCQ drives in RAID0.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: MrControversial
I opted out of the Raptor for two 160GB SATA NCQ drives in RAID0.

RAID 0 is like the Raptors, offers virtually no real world performance increase.

As i said in many threads, RAID is not meant for the average enthusiast looking for a quick performance gain.

-Kevin

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i have a 36gig raptor in my system...it makes quite a difference...i went from a 7200rpm 8mb maxtor drive...my boot times with win2k dropped from 1:30 to about 45 seconds...load times on games is a lot quicker as well...but space isnt a concern for me...i have a file server that handles mass storage duties...all i need is enough space for my os and apps...so just like everyone else says...it all depends on what you're doing and whether the speed increase is worth it to you

I find that very hard to believe considering:

[L=Link] The first generation (36.7gig) Raptor is slower in loading performance than the average 7200RPM Seagate/WD/Maxtor drive.

If you had a 45 second drop, there was something else wrong with your HDD, or you needed a defrag REALLY bad. Moving to a gen 1 raptor will not do that.

Theoretically there is a difference. Realistically there is virtually none.

-Kevin

well...that hdd is in my server now...not giving me any problems...and it gets defragged every week...not that it really needs it that often since i dont download on this box...just sharing my experience...and i know those are the correct times...not just myself thinking there is a difference since i expect one...i timed it before and after the raptor install

and star wars galaxies load times also dropped by about half...

 

[Gamingphreek]

Then there was something wrong with your other HDD. Simply moving to 10,000 RPM thereby reducing access time by a milisecond or two WILL NOT theoretically or in reality cut load times in half.

There is something wrong with your old drive if indeed the load times were cut in half seeing as most 7200RPM drives can beat the Gen 1 Raptor.

-Kevin

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Then there was something wrong with your other HDD. Simply moving to 10,000 RPM thereby reducing access time by a milisecond or two WILL NOT theoretically or in reality cut load times in half.

There is something wrong with your old drive if indeed the load times were cut in half seeing as most 7200RPM drives can beat the Gen 1 Raptor.

-Kevin

throughput man....i benched the old drive at about one third of what the raptor was putting out...i dont remember what the exact numbers were now...but i remember the drive index was almost tripled by the raptor

 

[Amaroque]

The 74 GB Raptor will absolutely feel faster then any 7200 RPM HDD, including the 16 MB cache Maxtor. 4.5 ms seek on the 10,000 RPM Raptor ll vs 9.3ms seek time on the 7200 RPM 16 MB cache Maxline lll . No contest.

I'm not talking about STR here. Although, the Raptor beats the fastest 7,200 RPM drive in that category also.

Seek time is what determines your systems snappiness, or responsiveness. That's why RAID doesn't do much for the average windows user. With RAID your STR doubles, but seek times stay the same. Windows is highly sensitive to seek times because it's mostly small file loads.

Bottom line: The lowest seek times will always win on an average usage pattern desktop system.

 

[Blain]

I likes me some snappy PC! :laugh:

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Originally posted by: Amaroque
The 74 GB Raptor will absolutely feel faster then any 7200 RPM HDD, including the 16 MB cache Maxtor. 4.5 ms seek on the 10,000 RPM Raptor ll vs 9.3ms seek time on the 7200 RPM 16 MB cache Maxline lll . No contest.

I'm not talking about STR here. Although, the Raptor beats the fastest 7,200 RPM drive in that category also.

Seek time is what determines your systems snappiness, or responsiveness. That's why RAID doesn't do much for the average windows user. With RAID your STR doubles, but seek times stay the same. Windows is highly sensitive to seek times because it's mostly small file loads.

Bottom line: The lowest seek times will always win on an average usage pattern desktop system.

Don't let GamingGeek catch you saying that. His all-knowingness would surely smite you for suggesting such shenannigans.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: MrControversial
I opted out of the Raptor for two 160GB SATA NCQ drives in RAID0.

RAID 0 is like the Raptors, offers virtually no real world performance increase.

As i said in many threads, RAID is not meant for the average enthusiast looking for a quick performance gain.

-Kevin

You have no clue what youre talking about. EVERYTHING that is disk read/seek/write oriented is faster in RAID 0. Is everything 2x as fast, nope. But every single disk read/write bench i run puts me at 250MB/s for 150MB/s SATAs. Quit trying to knock RAID unless you link to actual HD benches.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: MrControversial
I opted out of the Raptor for two 160GB SATA NCQ drives in RAID0.

RAID 0 is like the Raptors, offers virtually no real world performance increase.

As i said in many threads, RAID is not meant for the average enthusiast looking for a quick performance gain.

-Kevin

You have no clue what youre talking about. EVERYTHING that is disk read/seek/write oriented is faster in RAID 0. Is everything 2x as fast, nope. But every single disk read/write bench i run puts me at 250MB/s for 150MB/s SATAs. Quit trying to knock RAID unless you link to actual HD benches.

benchmarks vs real world performance...

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: MrControversial
I opted out of the Raptor for two 160GB SATA NCQ drives in RAID0.

RAID 0 is like the Raptors, offers virtually no real world performance increase.

As i said in many threads, RAID is not meant for the average enthusiast looking for a quick performance gain.

-Kevin

You have no clue what youre talking about. EVERYTHING that is disk read/seek/write oriented is faster in RAID 0. Is everything 2x as fast, nope. But every single disk read/write bench i run puts me at 250MB/s for 150MB/s SATAs. Quit trying to knock RAID unless you link to actual HD benches.

benchmarks vs real world performance...

Are you trying to suggest that HD benches that measure throughput of HD performance do not equate to load/write/seek times? 😕

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: MrControversial
I opted out of the Raptor for two 160GB SATA NCQ drives in RAID0.

RAID 0 is like the Raptors, offers virtually no real world performance increase.

As i said in many threads, RAID is not meant for the average enthusiast looking for a quick performance gain.

-Kevin

You have no clue what youre talking about. EVERYTHING that is disk read/seek/write oriented is faster in RAID 0. Is everything 2x as fast, nope. But every single disk read/write bench i run puts me at 250MB/s for 150MB/s SATAs. Quit trying to knock RAID unless you link to actual HD benches.

Please link me up to any benchmarks that indicate "seek" times are any faster under RAID 0 vs. single drives.
Thank you. :laugh:

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Are you trying to suggest that HD benches that measure throughput of HD performance do not equate to load/write/seek times? 😕

Correct. STR is great for contiguous large file transfers, it does nothing for random read/write operations. Your HD benches mean next to nothing for an average windows user. They are testing large file STR.

Like I said already, windows is largely dependant on seek times, not STR.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: homercles337
Are you trying to suggest that HD benches that measure throughput of HD performance do not equate to load/write/seek times? 😕

Correct. STR is great for contiguous large file transfers, it does nothing for random read/write operations. Your HD benches mean next to nothing for an average windows user. They are testing large file STR.

Like I said already, windows is largely dependant on seek times, not STR.

From the OP:

" 90% of my computer use will be for gaming heh."

Hardly an average windows user. I dont get why so many people want to knock RAID 0. I have seen HUGE improvements in load/boot times. (sorry about the seek claim 😱 I think read/write/seek just comes out of my mouth naturally when talking about HDs). Windows boots in a few seconds, apps launch MUCH faster, files write faster. How are these disadvantages? Do you really think im seeing performance improvements just because i imagine them?

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: homercles337
Are you trying to suggest that HD benches that measure throughput of HD performance do not equate to load/write/seek times? 😕

Correct. STR is great for contiguous large file transfers, it does nothing for random read/write operations. Your HD benches mean next to nothing for an average windows user. They are testing large file STR.

Like I said already, windows is largely dependant on seek times, not STR.

From the OP:

" 90% of my computer use will be for gaming heh."

Hardly an average windows user. I dont get why so many people want to knock RAID 0. I have seen HUGE improvements in load/boot times. (sorry about the seek claim 😱 I think read/write/seek just comes out of my mouth naturally when talking about HDs). Windows boots in a few seconds, apps launch MUCH faster, files write faster. How are these disadvantages? Do you really think im seeing performance improvements just because i imagine them?

Correct. This means RAID will do nothing. For a gamer, it is a complete waste.

I'm not knocking RAID. Have you noticed my sig? 2x on all my drives. But I do video editing, and huge file transfers across drives. RAID has it's place. A gaming machine isn't one of them.

If you're seeing HUGE improvements in windows app's, yes I'm saying that you're imagining it, and quite delusional.

 

[homercles337]

No, i think youre being delusional. RAID 0 equates to faster load times in gaming. I have witnessed this first hand. Plus, windows boots faster and apps launch faster. Im not saying that apps "run" faster, they sure as hell launch faster though.