OneOfTheseDays
Diamond Member
i'm using a 5400 rpm laptop drive and to be honest my system is pretty damn responsive. having 1GB+ of ram always helps, along with a speedy 1.86 Pentium M processor.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
NEW 10,000 RPM SATA 80GB
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
imported_Rampage
Senior member
Watchout, some of these guys will bash that processor here.
It doesnt say "AMD".. and are you sure that hard drive of yours doesnt say "Raptor" on it??
That would explain your great performance! :beer:
imported_Rampage
Senior member
It must really suck then to have both, a small drive that is also not the fastest drive either.
The flipside would be that in those "3 years" when a drive becomes slow suddenly (effectively making any worthwhile warrranty program ridiculous according to you), you will still have a small drive that is (according to you) REALLY slow by that point (rendering your warranty useless). 😉
I'll have 400GB of space, and a faster drive. Today, and in 3 years time. Pays to think when you are reading those reviews and not just equate Raptor with "best".
Seriously this is getting absurd, you are FOS to say that the 7200.8 is a "faster drive."
The raptor is not just faster in synthetics, its faster in both, most of the time. There will be a new Raptor out soon hopefully, but until then, the Raptor is still the fastest overall SATA drive period. It isn't unjustified hype, pricy, but not for a 10k drive.
The raptor is not just faster in synthetics, its faster in both, most of the time. There will be a new Raptor out soon hopefully, but until then, the Raptor is still the fastest overall SATA drive period. It isn't unjustified hype, pricy, but not for a 10k drive.
imported_Rampage
Senior member
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2396&p=13
Absurd?
Its got the goods, competitive and faster where it counts for most people using home PCs. Toss in its quieter, has larger sizes available and is cheaper.. you are pretty much left with the Raptor being an also-ran.
Most people are still impressed to hear someone has a Raptor, but its riding its reputation these days.. not because its the best product out there.
You sound like an englishman in 1200AD who heard the world wasnt flat.
:Q "This cannot be!" :Q
I know it bugs you guys but its reality. That expensive drive isnt all its cracked up to be when you actually examine the numbers it puts out.
And whats the difference if its 10K or 30K RPM?
Just because its a 10K drive makes it "all worth it"?
THATS the absurd thought of the day.
You do realize that the Raptor beats some 15K drives right?
The hard part for you to admit is that the Raptor is not the king any longer. You dont retain the leadership position and get blown away by a full 8 seconds consistently by a "lesser" drive. You may say "meh just 8 seconds slower" but thats acutally a crushing defeat for the Raptor. Thats a long time for a HDD.
Find me any load tests that show the Raptor to have that kind of advantage on a 7200.8.
On the whole 10K RPM vs 7200RPM thing.. you need to quit thinking some data sheet is going to command superiority, when its real world testing that matters.
Assuming the 8 seconds is not a fluke, that is a nice gain, but its only one benchmark out of the majority of real and synthetic which the Raptor wins.
I keep talking about speed, you keep saying that it's quieter (where do you get that anyway) and bigger.
Speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed is my point, and in the majority of cases the raptor wins.
When we talk about neeeeeeeeeed that's where the 400gigs comes into play, maybe. For me, pointless, which is why I have a raptor, for you, maybe not.
No way the 7200.8 is somehow "faster" than the raptor though. You're basing your entire claim on one benchmark in one review which is stupid. One benchmark is not "consistent" btw.
Seek times matter in real world responsiveness btw, that's the reason for 10k being very relevant
I keep talking about speed, you keep saying that it's quieter (where do you get that anyway) and bigger.
Speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed is my point, and in the majority of cases the raptor wins.
When we talk about neeeeeeeeeed that's where the 400gigs comes into play, maybe. For me, pointless, which is why I have a raptor, for you, maybe not.
No way the 7200.8 is somehow "faster" than the raptor though. You're basing your entire claim on one benchmark in one review which is stupid. One benchmark is not "consistent" btw.
Seek times matter in real world responsiveness btw, that's the reason for 10k being very relevant
imported_Rampage
Senior member
AT's testing methodology appears to be consistent to me. He did those tests many times. Its reliable son.
The Raptor doenst win the rest of this review. The synthetic, while I know that part might make you feel good, I'm not going to comment on because they are useless for any practical purpose.
It would be different if the synthetic tests had some correlation to real world performance, but its clear they dont.
In the real world tests, for example, the file system tasks shows the Raptor taking the lead in the 300MB single file and 300 1MB file zip tests.
By a whopping .5 to .7 seconds depending on which of the two tests you are looking at.
And the DM10 is right on its heels, in the 300MB zip test its .1 second behind.
Not a good showing.
In every other single test for the file system, another drive took the crown besides the Raptor.
In the application load tests, the Raptor took the lead, but all of its averages are within 1 second or less advantage over the DM10 and 7200.8.
Not good for such a small, expensive drive.. not at all.
In the level loading tests, we already know the results.. a full 8 second lead by the Seagate in the Doom3 test. It also takes the other tests, albeit by a small margin, but it takes all the gaming tests.. which is a statement for a cheaper, larger drive.
So as far as the test results.. you pretty much got owned. I have no idea why you keep saying the Raptor wins pretty much everything else other than the level loads.. ?
The "responsiveness".. sure, you might have an argument there if we werent in the age of 512 and 1GB of RAM. And if the difference in "response time" was even noticable without a stopwatch.. which is still going to be in the tenth and thousandth of a second in variation.
Even then, if it seeks out the data faster, if it can't beat another drive at continuing to actually send it down the pipe its a moot point. At which point I show you the level loads again.. that seek time means little when you are getting stomped out in doing anything intensive like loading a level.
Anything in a review that shows a 1 second lead or less, probably is going to be hard to notice if doing a in-person comparison without your stopwatch. But that 8 second lead actually matters.
That kind of performance lead is large, and goign to spill into some other highly intensive games like Doom3 that werent tested.
Enjoy your Raptors.. but regardless if you wish to admit it or not.. I'm sure you are thinking twice now about its so-called dominance (which doesn't exist).
Sometimes smart engineering can make a bigger difference than a nice looking spec sheet. I'm afraid that this is what we have here in the 7200.8s, and the DM10 is a very respectable drive as well, but its clear its prowess lies in a large part in its 16MB cache.
Either way, I'd rather take however many more DM10 or 7200.8's I could have @$400 (about 4 200GB 7200.8's, giving you a faster gaming rig and 800GB of storage) instead of two old 74GB Raptors for $400:brokenheart:... um, anyday!
What a masubatory post, you're so full of crap on this. And calling me "son." What are you 14 years old?
The ONLY question is speed, NOT value! (7200.8 400gb is 80 bucks more than Raptor anyway)
Here are the stats in the three "real world" sets if you only cout those. The Raptor wins the rest as well:
For These 3 sets
File Transfer:
Raptor wins 2/5
7200.8 wins 1/5
Application Load times:
Raptor 6/6
7200.8 *0/6*
Game Tests
Raptor 0/3
7200.8 3/3
The Raptor still wins 8/14 with the 7200.8 showing a dismal (for a so-called "Raptor bester") 4/14
The Raptor wins more overall by a large % than any other drive.
Z0mg 8secs in Doom III!111111111111?
Only a big deal if its repeated.
It isn't in the other two tests, they come within 1 second of each other, and that's assuming the 8 sec. bench is even accurate.
You dismiss Storage Reviews conclusions despite their being a well-regarded review site.
Their gaming bench btw which Raptor beats the 7200.8 by more than 20% is a compliation of 5 game level load times.
They say about the two drives:
"Western Digital's newest entry shatters previous records by even more astonishing margins. In addition to leaving all other 10k RPM SCSI drives in the dust, the WD740GD approaches the performance of the 15k RPM Fujitsu MAS3735 and Maxtor Atlas 15k in the Office and Gaming DriveMarks. Further, it handily bests the two powerhouses in the High-End and Bootup DriveMarks. Overall, for non-server use, Western Digital's Raptor WD740GD is the fastest single hard disk one can buy regardless of spindle speed, interface, or price. "
"Unfortunately, while the capacity is there, the performance is not. The 7200.8 lags significantly behind the latest offerings from Maxtor and Hitachi in both single-user and multi-user instances. " - Storage Review
====
The 7200.8 is not a faster drive. In real world apps it only wins 1/2 as many benchmarks in the anand review. It wins NO compilation tests like Drivemark or Sysmark. It has double the seek time.
It also costs 80 dollars more than the Raptor at 250.00 vs. 160-170.
Yet you keep claiming its faster and cheaper.
You remind me of: This guy!
The ONLY question is speed, NOT value! (7200.8 400gb is 80 bucks more than Raptor anyway)
Here are the stats in the three "real world" sets if you only cout those. The Raptor wins the rest as well:
For These 3 sets
File Transfer:
Raptor wins 2/5
7200.8 wins 1/5
Application Load times:
Raptor 6/6
7200.8 *0/6*
Game Tests
Raptor 0/3
7200.8 3/3
The Raptor still wins 8/14 with the 7200.8 showing a dismal (for a so-called "Raptor bester") 4/14
The Raptor wins more overall by a large % than any other drive.
Z0mg 8secs in Doom III!111111111111?
Only a big deal if its repeated.
It isn't in the other two tests, they come within 1 second of each other, and that's assuming the 8 sec. bench is even accurate.
You dismiss Storage Reviews conclusions despite their being a well-regarded review site.
Their gaming bench btw which Raptor beats the 7200.8 by more than 20% is a compliation of 5 game level load times.
They say about the two drives:
"Western Digital's newest entry shatters previous records by even more astonishing margins. In addition to leaving all other 10k RPM SCSI drives in the dust, the WD740GD approaches the performance of the 15k RPM Fujitsu MAS3735 and Maxtor Atlas 15k in the Office and Gaming DriveMarks. Further, it handily bests the two powerhouses in the High-End and Bootup DriveMarks. Overall, for non-server use, Western Digital's Raptor WD740GD is the fastest single hard disk one can buy regardless of spindle speed, interface, or price. "
"Unfortunately, while the capacity is there, the performance is not. The 7200.8 lags significantly behind the latest offerings from Maxtor and Hitachi in both single-user and multi-user instances. " - Storage Review
====
The 7200.8 is not a faster drive. In real world apps it only wins 1/2 as many benchmarks in the anand review. It wins NO compilation tests like Drivemark or Sysmark. It has double the seek time.
It also costs 80 dollars more than the Raptor at 250.00 vs. 160-170.
Yet you keep claiming its faster and cheaper.
You remind me of: This guy!
Iraqi Information Minister on Iraq vs. USA
"Now even the American command is under siege. We are hitting it from the north, east, south and west. We chase them here and they chase us there. But at the end we are the people who are laying siege to them. And it is not them who are besieging us."
Pawni on 7200.8 vs Raptor
"Not to mention my two 200GB 7200.8s in RAID-0 are near silent.
While remaining faster than a Raptor (or even RAID-0 Raptors)"
"Now even the American command is under siege. We are hitting it from the north, east, south and west. We chase them here and they chase us there. But at the end we are the people who are laying siege to them. And it is not them who are besieging us."
Pawni on 7200.8 vs Raptor
"Not to mention my two 200GB 7200.8s in RAID-0 are near silent.
While remaining faster than a Raptor (or even RAID-0 Raptors)"
I THINK IS IN THE WWW.EUROBIDS.NET
GamerExpress
Banned
Yep, I think I saw something about this on here already last week.
Overkiller
Platinum Member
I have a 36 GB raptor, 200gb 7200rpm WD, and a 400 GB seagate 7200.8; all SATA
The raptor is the fastest and it is quite perceptible in my usage...
The raptor is the fastest and it is quite perceptible in my usage...
MobiusPizza
Platinum Member
Firstly RAID-0 is not very popular. Chances are you putting your data at risk
Raptor is although just on-par with newest drives on transfer rate but the point is its seek time is still twice faster than 7200 drives. So I'd say Raptor is still the winner. Plus it has 5 year warranty. It has TCQ by the way, which is supposely better than NCQ
imported_Rampage
Senior member
You can try to make it look better than it really is, but I already went over the results and its not flattering for your drive.
In the real world tests, for example, the file system tasks shows the Raptor taking the lead in the 300MB single file and 300 1MB file zip tests.
By a whopping .5 to .7 seconds depending on which of the two tests you are looking at.
And the DM10 is right on its heels, in the 300MB zip test its .1 second behind.
Not a good showing.
In every other single test for the file system, another drive took the crown besides the Raptor.
In the application load tests, the Raptor took the lead, but all of its averages are within 1 second or less advantage over the DM10 and 7200.8.
Not good for such a small, expensive drive.. not at all.
In the level loading tests, we already know the results.. a full 8 second lead by the Seagate in the Doom3 test. It also takes the other tests, albeit by a small margin, but it takes all the gaming tests.. which is a statement for a cheaper, larger drive.
Its good to actually THINK about what you are looking at Jackal.
Yeah too bad you leave out the fact the DM10 also is beating this wonderful Raptor of yours in real world tests.
Your messiah only wins 2/5 in the file transfer and while it does the app load well, its a tenth of a second or sometimes a thousandth of a second faster than the competition.
Woot?
Yeah, I suppose those few wins it actually has, by <1% mean alot for your bragging rights?
It was repeated.
Its much more accurate than your assumptions.
Like I said, while opinions are great (not really).. I would never buy a product without using my own judgement off the facts that matter.
The Raptor is the synthetic king, no doubt.. though this doenst sway me much.
There are drives out there starting to beat the Raptor in real world apps, and doing it at less RPM and a cheaper price.
Your review is useless. Its from 2004. The 7200.8 isnt even in the review.
You can't take two completely different reviews and compare results, even two StorageReview articles. Its not the same test bed or conditions.
Thats just wishful thinking on your part.
While you use two different articles, one being from 2004 and not even including the 7200.8 in its results.. (yet you pull a comparison out of a different review and say its a legit comparison)
Beyond that, StorageReview is NOT as well regarded as Anandtech.. yes even for storage reviews.. simply because someone calls their site "storagereview" does NOT mean they are the authority.
I can pull down plenty of articles showing your Raptor in an even worse light, but since we are on AT, and it included BOTH the Raptor and the 7200.8.. I think I know which one I'm going with.
You on the other hand will do anything to take the conversation away from that article to something more pleasing. Your motives are clear.
I think you need some work on your scientific methods. Like I said you'd be the guy adamant the world is flat. Or possibly the descendant of that guy that starts the Salem Witch trials.
While it does trounce your drive in the all important gaming tests, I am not goign to hand it the crown. You might notice, a more recent review than yours (AT's) didnt give the Raptor the crown.
Thats something a product has to earn. Not just have a high price tag. Your old hard drive WAS the fastest thing at ONE time.
BTW the 7200.8s are cheaper. The 200GB is $100 average. Your Raptor is $200 average. The 400GB 7200.8 runs $225, but is over 4X the space you have with one of your drives.. and still faster in level loading.. quite the shame.
imported_Rampage
Senior member
All these checkbox features dont help it much as its getting beaten by the DM10 and 7200.8s, and annilhilated in the Doom3 test.
Buy off of reality, not superstition that "TCQ is supposedly better".. if the results arent there..
You might be able to join my friend in telling some old wives tales.
Well, same deal with me as with Pariah, I own two 7200.8's, the S-ATA version(not that it matters, I just like the cables).
They're definitely not particularly fast compared to many other 7200 RPM drives out there, for example my "old" Deskstar 7K250, and I won't even get into 15K SCSI drives.
Never having used a Raptor, my only point of reference would be modern 10K SCSI drives, for example Atlas 10K V's, there's just no doubt they're faster though I guess if one dug deep enough one could find a benchmark where the 7200.8 would win.
And seeing as the Raptor beats any other 10K drive in single user apps, it stands to reason that it will easily hand the 7200.8 it's ass on a platter as far as performance is concerned.
That said, I knew this full well when I bought the 7200's, I made a compromise of speed vs storage and a 5 year waranty(yeah I tend to reuse my drives until they die, and nothing beats sending in old drives for waranty and getting a new bigger one back).
Also, as far as reliability I trust Seagate the most in the consumer field.
They're definitely not particularly fast compared to many other 7200 RPM drives out there, for example my "old" Deskstar 7K250, and I won't even get into 15K SCSI drives.
Never having used a Raptor, my only point of reference would be modern 10K SCSI drives, for example Atlas 10K V's, there's just no doubt they're faster though I guess if one dug deep enough one could find a benchmark where the 7200.8 would win.
And seeing as the Raptor beats any other 10K drive in single user apps, it stands to reason that it will easily hand the 7200.8 it's ass on a platter as far as performance is concerned.
That said, I knew this full well when I bought the 7200's, I made a compromise of speed vs storage and a 5 year waranty(yeah I tend to reuse my drives until they die, and nothing beats sending in old drives for waranty and getting a new bigger one back).
Also, as far as reliability I trust Seagate the most in the consumer field.
Ronin
Diamond Member
I think southpawuni just can't afford true speed, so he's trying to justify his own purchases to himself.
The biggest problem with the Raptors is space. No one refutes that. I've been running them since they were released (both the 36GB and the 74GB drives), and I've done massive comparisons (including SCSI drives, and 7200.8 drives). End result? SCSI raid is the only thing that tears these drives apart consistently, and the cost factor there makes that a nonissue.
With literally 100's of HDs of various types and speeds to test with, I've spent the time on this, and will only buy the best without going overboard (such as SCSI, impo for a home environment), and I continue to buy the Raptors until something better comes along.
The biggest problem with the Raptors is space. No one refutes that. I've been running them since they were released (both the 36GB and the 74GB drives), and I've done massive comparisons (including SCSI drives, and 7200.8 drives). End result? SCSI raid is the only thing that tears these drives apart consistently, and the cost factor there makes that a nonissue.
With literally 100's of HDs of various types and speeds to test with, I've spent the time on this, and will only buy the best without going overboard (such as SCSI, impo for a home environment), and I continue to buy the Raptors until something better comes along.
I bought a raptor because of the speed, but also the size. I don't want a huge drive for my os & programs - if the drive goes belly up, I don't even want the opportunity to have stored things on it. I've been nothing but happy with it, and the price I paid for the drive was worth it.
eastvillager
Senior member
Southpaw lost me when he started dissing on StorageReview. At that point, we knew he was just there defending his purchase. On the other hand, i've been using raptors for years. 🙂
This was a great read. I love my raptor, and always thought it was the BEST drive.
I think everyone would agree that real world benchmarks outweigh synthetic benchmarks (assuming I have a correct definition of a synthetic benchmark).
It seems like Frackal doesn't believe so. Frackal, have you notice bad experiences with anandtech's reviews? Maybe that is why you favor the StorageReview website.
- Maybe that was because you didn't read the entire thread?
I think everyone would agree that real world benchmarks outweigh synthetic benchmarks (assuming I have a correct definition of a synthetic benchmark).
It seems like Frackal doesn't believe so. Frackal, have you notice bad experiences with anandtech's reviews? Maybe that is why you favor the StorageReview website.
SR's benchmarks aren't synthetic, which makes the whole point moot. southpawuni doesn't know what he is talking about.
Here's one: Anand's storage reviews stink. How's that? They're actually much improved from a few years ago, but that's only moved them from complete waste of web space to simply stinking. Anand should stick to what he knows, CPU's, video cards and motherboards, and let specialty sites handle the rest (storage, audio, etc).
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
