Raid 0 Choice

[Rakewell]

I am currently dual-booting Win7 & Vista (mostly using 7).

I am using the raptors for vista and the 2 WDs for Windows 7. (Both sets of raid 0 are onboard from Gigabyte GA-58EX.)

My question is: Which configuration is faster... the Raptors or the caviars?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Rakewell
I am currently dual-booting Win7 & Vista (mostly using 7).

I am using the raptors for vista and the 2 WDs for Windows 7. (Both sets of raid 0 are onboard from Gigabyte GA-58EX.)

My question is: Which configuration is faster... the Raptors or the caviars?

* Faster at what?
* Check for yourself... HD Tach, IOMeter, FC Test

 

[Rakewell]

Thanks for the response, Blain-

When I say Faster, I mean all around, zippier, with the OS. Good data transfer speeds nice to have, but I'm mostly interested in faster app load times, etc.

I've read that there are those that prefer the Caviars to the 74 raptors, and vice versa.

Just want to know, before extensive testing on both arrays, whether anyone has the same or similar config as I do.

Thanks!

 

[betaflame]

zippier would be raptors(seeking)...

If you want zippy you should probably have gone with SSDs though.

 

[bigsnyder]

There are several benchmarks and screenshots over at hardocp's forum, and also discussion here of few months back on this subject. Generally most prefer the 640GB blacks or even the standard blue Caviars vs the raptors. I am running two 640GB blacks short-stoked at 640GB, I wanted a middle ground between capacity and performance. If you are considering 74GB raptors, then short-stroking two of the caviars down to 80-100GB shouldn't be an issue and will give you incredible performance that should easily surpass the raptors.

 

[TC91]

If those are the older raptors then the WD blacks are definitely faster, no question. I have seen a 74gb velociraptor floating around some places though, but I have no idea on how those perform so if you have the 74gb velociraptors then they *might* be faster but you would have to bench them and check if that was the case.

 

[soccerballtux]

uh yeah the WDs.

 

[Collider]

Ok, maybe a silly question... I have a pair of 36gb raptors (the very first ones that came out years ago) in raid 0, been using them for years and fairly happy w/ performance.

What are the WD blacks ? Are they 10,000 rpm as well ?

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: avp2306
Ok, maybe a silly question... I have a pair of 36gb raptors (the very first ones that came out years ago) in raid 0, been using them for years and fairly happy w/ performance.

What are the WD blacks ? Are they 10,000 rpm as well ?

Nope, 7200rpm.

Though it would be interesting to see how they do against each other in random read/write rates cause thats where I would assume the raptors shine due to their seek times.

In linear read times the raptors no longer set any speed records, in fact my 500gig 5400rpm laptop drive is faster than the gen1 74gig raptor I had. Need I mention the grinding noise?

 

[Collider]

So then how are the 7200 WDs faster then 10,000 Raptors?

Also I've seen some crazy numbers (300-350mb) for 7200 raid 0 setups using 2 drives and mine are no where close: http://screencast.com/t/t6jTGXpHd

what am I missing?

Once again I have a pair of the very first raptors that came out in 36GB.

 

[postmortemIA]

two raptors are faster than one WD black, but sequential read of WD black is significantly better than one on 74 or 36GB raptor. Raptors are also very noisy.

It doesn't pay to get old versions, unless you can get velociraptor for similar price, I'd go for two WD blacks, if nothing for size.

WD Blacks will perform as good or better in almost all cases. Raptors would perform great when multiple tasks are assigned to them.

I'd also go for RAID0 for sure

 

[Collider]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
two raptors are faster than one WD black, but sequential read of WD black is significantly better than one on 74 or 36GB raptor. Raptors are also very noisy.

It doesn't pay to get old versions, unless you can get velociraptor for similar price, I'd go for two WD blacks, if nothing for size.

WD Blacks will perform as good or better in almost all cases. Raptors would perform great when multiple tasks are assigned to them.

I'd also go for RAID0 for sure

so in a raid 0 setup what is faster WD or Velociraptors?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: avp2306
So then how are the 7200 WDs faster then 10,000 Raptors?

greater data density

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: avp2306

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
two raptors are faster than one WD black, but sequential read of WD black is significantly better than one on 74 or 36GB raptor. Raptors are also very noisy.

It doesn't pay to get old versions, unless you can get velociraptor for similar price, I'd go for two WD blacks, if nothing for size.

WD Blacks will perform as good or better in almost all cases. Raptors would perform great when multiple tasks are assigned to them.

I'd also go for RAID0 for sure

so in a raid 0 setup what is faster WD or Velociraptors?

It is hard to separate what is more important random access or sequential speed. Any real world use is mix of both.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

WD Blacks have a dual processor design that really works well for multi-threaded reads and writes. The WD RE3's are faster ALL-AROUND than the WD Blacks, and probably the old WD Raptors, so yeah the WD's are faster - if budget isn't a concern, then buy a pair of RE3's and a pair of new VelociRaptors and have at it! If budget IS a concern, then get 1 pair of RE3's and stick a spork in it.

 

[Shmee]

I have 2 samsung spinpoint F1's in raid 0, and they are more than twice as fast as my old 74 GB raptor in terms of read speeds. I would go with a decent sized WD black or Samsung spinpoint F1 for raid 0, both can be had for low prices.

 

[Collider]

Originally posted by: ChaiBabbaChai
WD Blacks have a dual processor design that really works well for multi-threaded reads and writes. The WD RE3's are faster ALL-AROUND than the WD Blacks, and probably the old WD Raptors, so yeah the WD's are faster - if budget isn't a concern, then buy a pair of RE3's and a pair of new VelociRaptors and have at it! If budget IS a concern, then get 1 pair of RE3's and stick a spork in it.

wow, it seems I'm really behind on latest storage improvements. My last build was over 4 years ago for a A64.

Thanks for the info. So if I was going for a raid 0 based on what your're saying 2 x RE3's are the way to go. Do smaller sizes perform better, since less platters? If so what size is best for performance.

Also can someone explain what is short stocking?

Thanks!

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

these RE3 500Gb seem to be winners as well as the RE3 1TB - http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...0-5-10-500gb-hdds.html

WD seems to have a solid grasp on how to design and build HDD's right now. With the exception of some bad Blue (AAKS, I think) they seem to be the best choice.