Raptor not so fast

[Shenkoa]

I have a Maxtor Diamond Max Plus 9 80 GB and a 36 GB Raptor, I used HD Tach and Sandra to benchmark them both. HDTach showed the Maxtor to have a higher burste rate and a higher seek time, sounds right but not for the burste rate, then I used Sandra's file system benchmark and removable storage benchmark, Sandra showed the Maxtor to Smash it in everything and seek time as well.

Whats going on here?? both are defraged and barely have anything on em.

Sandra reports my raptor to have a 13 MS seek time (HD Tach said 8) while my maxtor is reported to have a 9 MS seek time (HD Tach said 14),drive index on the Maxtor is 50 MB/s and 44 on the raptor. I am using Sandra's File System test.

I am using a Link Depot SATA 150 card.

 

[Malak]

Read Anandtech's article, Raptor vs the world. The 36GB raptor ain't that great, it's the 2nd gen 74 that is fast.

 

[iamskew]

to be honest, the only benefit i've seen of the 74GB raptor is that it loads windows REALLY fast...like 10 seconds tops, with a bunch of system tray stuff to load too. Other than that, say with like encoding video, i can't see any difference between my seagate and my raptor...

 

[Shenkoa]

Well that sux.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Well that sux.

yes it does.

 

[Polishwonder74]

So wtf is the solution for incredible HD performance? I think I remember an article a couple months ago right here at Anandtech that showed only marginal improvements to loading times in Far Cry when you match up normal hard drives vs. RAID.

 

[Malak]

RAID doesn't help with gaming. Maximum PC said that they even found performance losses in some games.

 

[Mloot]

Originally posted by: Polishwonder74
So wtf is the solution for incredible HD performance?

15K SCSI, perhaps?

 

[mechBgon]

Wheee, more SATA problems

Shenkoa, what controllers are running the two drives there? Have you tried any SmileMark benchies yet, where you actually use the drive and go ~ dude! that think extracted that huge RAR file teh FAST!!!

Originally posted by: Mloot

Originally posted by: Polishwonder74
So wtf is the solution for incredible HD performance?

15K SCSI, perhaps?

Careful Mloot, they're going to fling StorageReview side-by-side comparisons at you now

 

[DaveSimmons]

This is why you click the "Storage" tab at the top of the page and read the articles before you buy your drives.

Something else good to learn about before you need it: backups. They are your friend.

 

[Shenkoa]

BUMP! added more info.

 

[mircea]

Well I got the 74GB Raptor as my main HDD and the 16MB buffer MAxtor at 300GB. They work at about the same speed, one because of RPM the other because of buffer size. I will be using the system mainly for DV video editing, and some gaming. I usually play games in image CD's. My brother has a tendency to scratch CD's so I stopt using them.
I don't have the parts in yet (4.5 weeks till it should get here) but I know I will feel a diference going from a XP 2100+ to a 64 3200+ and from 80GB 2MB buffer HDD to the Raptor and Max Line with 16MB buffer

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
I have a Maxtor Diamond Max Plus 9 80 GB and a 36 GB Raptor, I used HD Tach and Sandra to benchmark them both. HDTach showed the Maxtor to have a higher burste rate and a higher seek time

 

[Zebo]

hAD one two two months best sale I ever made. Sold it for $189 now they are $160ish... would have lost half my money if I did'nt get rid of it. Problems? highn loudness even inside my smartdrive 2002. Took me awile to figure out SATA (but that's probably my fault) but lets just say I'm happy all PATA user again. I noticed no difference from even a slow seagate 160 w 8mb cache therefore it's price/performance ratio sucked which offends me.

 

[Darth Farter]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
I have a Maxtor Diamond Max Plus 9 80 GB and a 36 GB Raptor, I used HD Tach and Sandra to benchmark them both. HDTach showed the Maxtor to have a higher burste rate and a higher seek time

dang funny lmfao

 

[Safeway]

I'm waiting for 10k, NCQ, SATA 150, 16mb cache, 200GB+ ... then SATA 300 =)

 

[Polishwonder74]

So do we have a verdict?

It kinda looks like SATA is teh suck right now. I'm so glad I bought 2 thinking I was going to juice up my storage setup so that my rig would run wicked fast. . . Live and learn. . . . . .