Raptor...Still worth it?

[HeXploiT]

I'm considering picking up a 74gb Raptor. I wonder though if it's really worth it getting one of these for $80 anymore when one can pick up a 500gb sata drive w/16mb cache for $100? Would the speed of the Raptor be worth it these days or is it wasted money?

 

[Rike]

Waste of money unless all the following are true for you:

1) Money is no object
2) Everything else in your system is already the best
3) You regularly preform high HD intensive tasks on your system

My two cents.

 

[jkresh]

The raptor is faster (i have a 150gig raptor and 500gig 7200.10), but for most takes the differences are not that big so whether it is worth it or not is subjective.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: jkresh
The raptor is faster (i have a 150gig raptor and 500gig 7200.10), but for most takes the differences are not that big so whether it is worth it or not is subjective.

How much faster? How about boot times?

 

[F1shF4t]

Raptors work well as boot drives where their fast seek times help, for larger files and general storage the 7200rpm drives are just as good and a lot cheaper.
I use one 16mg cache 74gig raptor for os and programs installs. Up to you if you want to spend the money, but for me i like having a small fast (most lower capacity 7200rpm drives are slower) boot drive which i can format without care when i need to re-instal (all my storage is on other drives).

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
Raptors work well as boot drives where their fast seek times help, for larger files and general storage the 7200rpm drives are just as good and a lot cheaper.
I use one 16mg cache 74gig raptor for os and programs installs. Up to you if you want to spend the money, but for me i like having a small fast (most lower capacity 7200rpm drives are slower) boot drive which i can format without care when i need to re-instal (all my storage is on other drives).

That's exactly what I plan to use it for. I figure split it in half between XP/Vista.

 

[Blain]

See below...

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: jkresh
...whether it is worth it or not is subjective.

Very true :laugh:

Originally posted by: Perry404
I figure split it in half between XP/Vista.

If boot times and performance are top priority with you...
Pick one OS and go with it.
You won't get the same performance on each partition.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Rike
Waste of money unless all the following are true for you:

1) Money is no object
2) Everything else in your system is already the best
3) You regularly preform high HD intensive tasks on your system

My two cents.

Everyone performs intensive HD I/O on their systems, at least at boot up . Other than the Internet connection it's one of the biggest bottlenecks in a system. Faster storage == always good.

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Rike
Waste of money unless all the following are true for you:

1) Money is no object
2) Everything else in your system is already the best
3) You regularly preform high HD intensive tasks on your system

My two cents.

Everyone performs intensive HD I/O on their systems, at least at boot up . Other than the Internet connection it's one of the biggest bottlenecks in a system. Faster storage == always good.

But is it worth 15% of the drive space and for $50 to $80 more? With a typical 500GB HD you pay about 20 cents/GB; with a 74 GB Raptor you pay about $2.03/GB. And how much faster? Maybe 3 sec on startup. Some benefits in other things.

For me, I've used them and they are not worth the money; not even close.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Rike
For me, I've used them and they are not worth the money; not even close.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Rike
Waste of money unless all the following are true for you:

1) Money is no object
2) Everything else in your system is already the best
3) You regularly preform high HD intensive tasks on your system

My two cents.

Everyone performs intensive HD I/O on their systems, at least at boot up . Other than the Internet connection it's one of the biggest bottlenecks in a system. Faster storage == always good.

But is it worth 15% of the drive space and for $50 to $80 more? With a typical 500GB HD you pay about 20 cents/GB; with a 74 GB Raptor you pay about $2.03/GB. And how much faster? Maybe 3 sec on startup. Some benefits in other things.

For me, I've used them and they are not worth the money; not even close.

Probably not, but then I would have a hard time attaching nearly anything in my system to an actual financial justification.

 

[pontifex]

was it ever worth it?

 

[Modular]

BFG10K a member of these forums just did a little test that confirms what many have been saying (although not in this thread): that the Raptor is a waste of $$.

 

[seemingly random]

Worth it? no.

There are several reviews with comparisons - irrc, raptor is maybe 10% faster than the current crop of hd's. They're hotter and noisier also.

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Worth it? no.

There are several reviews with comparisons - irrc, raptor is maybe 10% faster than the current crop of hd's. They're hotter and noisier also.

Noisier yes, hotter no. Heat wise they are the coolest drives in my system.

Also partitioning reduces performance, and if you don't and use a large drive for os it will crawl once you fill it up.

Lots of people are commenting on them without actually using one.
Raptors will not speed up your game loading times and they will not be faster at working with large files when compared to current 7200 rpm drives. (unless at the end of the drive, where they obliterate the 7200rpm drives, but its moot point since there is so much less capacity)

However OS loading and general snappines of the system is well worth it for me.
(If i could stick one in my laptop I would , you don't appreciate how much difference a fast HDD makes until you have to use a slow one (eg laptop drive))

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
Noisier yes, hotter no. Heat wise they are the coolest drives in my system.
...
Lots of people are commenting on them without actually using one.
Raptors will not speed up your game loading times and they will not be faster at working with large files when compared to current 7200 rpm drives. (unless at the end of the drive, where they obliterate the 7200rpm drives, but its moot point since there is so much less capacity)

Interesting. I don't remember it this way. I'm going to dig my two raptor150's, one with and one without the window, out of the closet and do some testing. Granted snappiness is subjective and disagreeing with it would be assumptive and rude.

When I purchased the raptors, I felt they were worth it. A couple of years ago I would have scoffed at the idea of not getting one despite the exorbitant cost. With the current crop of hd's, the raptors don't seem worth it now. Would anyone who has one now repurchase another if it died tomorrow? If so, fine - though I'm guessing most would go for the almost as fast, much cheaper 7200rpm's.

Here's a quandary - which would be a better choice: a raptor150 or wd500aa + 2gb ram?

(If i could stick one in my laptop I would , you don't appreciate how much difference a fast HDD makes until you have to use a slow one (eg laptop drive))

A 5400rpm 80mb died on one of my Dell laptops and was replaced with a 7200rpm 100mb. The difference was amazing - extended the life of the laptop several years. Didn't do much for battery life but that's ok since it's usually on a/c.

 

[Blain]

This subject has been beat to death...
CPR'd back to life, killed again...
Resurrected and beaten to death once again. :laugh:

Please let the "Raptor worth it" and "Should I RAID 0", rest in peace! :shocked:

 

[Rike]

You know, people are still re-enacting the U.S. Civil War. The Raptor and RAID 0 issue could be around for a while, too.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Seagate 7200.11. Yup, this drive isn't that far behind the Raptor. The old 10000 rpm design is outdated. Unless you're moving GBs of data on a daily basis, the latest 7200 rpm drives should run cooler and quieter. Oh yes, more $ in your wallet.

 

[tylerdustin2008]

Just get a Hitachi or Seagate drive with a 32mb cache. I seen a couple of people who swear it is faster than raptors.

 

[balane]

Here are some benchmarks I ran on the two drives I happen to have in my computer running 64 bit Vista Ultimate.

Drive 1.) WD RaptorX 150gb
Drive 2.) Seagate Barracuda 320gb 7200.10 w/ Perpendicular Recording Technology

HD Tune Results

http://home.comcast.net/~bartalane/hdtune.jpg

HD Tach Results

http://home.comcast.net/~bartalane/hdtach.jpg

The Barracuda was my primary drive, actually my only drive, for ~6 months. I got a good deal on the RaptorX so I installed it and moved my Barracuda to a backup and data drive. Now, all I can do is judge from these two particular drives but definitely, most definitely, my computer is snappier feeling with the Raptor. From my perception everything loads and feels faster. Level loading in games seems faster all the way around. For instance, in Oblivion there is barely a perceptible pause when bringing in new areas when before there was clearly a momentary break in the action. I would never want to give up my Raptor for this particular Seagate.

But ~$90 for the Barracuda and ~$175 for the Raptor, that's a big price difference and much less storage space. Ideally, for people who like things as fast as they can get them the Raptor makes sense for an OS drive and put your data on a cheap, large 7200rpm drive. That's the ultimate set up in my humble opinion.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Rike
You know, people are still re-enacting the U.S. Civil War. The Raptor and RAID 0 issue could be around for a while, too.

That little blunder the Mississippi senator made at the South Carolina senator's funeral a few years ago wasn't a random thought. Having lived in the South for a few years now have made me aware that some folks would very much like pre-Civil War times to return.

So in a 100 years, when drives are made from enzymes or some such, there'll be people trying to resurrect raptors and who knows what else from the good old days.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: balane
Here are some benchmarks I ran on the two drives I happen to have in my computer running 64 bit Vista Ultimate.

Drive 1.) WD RaptorX 150gb
Drive 2.) Seagate Barracuda 320gb 7200.10 w/ Perpendicular Recording Technology

HD Tune Results

http://home.comcast.net/~bartalane/hdtune.jpg

HD Tach Results

http://home.comcast.net/~bartalane/hdtach.jpg

The Barracuda was my primary drive, actually my only drive, for ~6 months. I got a good deal on the RaptorX so I installed it and moved my Barracuda to a backup and data drive. Now, all I can do is judge from these two particular drives but definitely, most definitely, my computer is snappier feeling with the Raptor. From my perception everything loads and feels faster. Level loading in games seems faster all the way around. For instance, in Oblivion there is barely a perceptible pause when bringing in new areas when before there was clearly a momentary break in the action. I would never want to give up my Raptor for this particular Seagate.

But ~$90 for the Barracuda and ~$175 for the Raptor, that's a big price difference and much less storage space. Ideally, for people who like things as fast as they can get them the Raptor makes sense for an OS drive and put your data on a cheap, large 7200rpm drive. That's the ultimate set up in my humble opinion.

Those differences are not big. It seems like it's a placebo effect you experience in games

 

[n7]

Maybe it's just me, but i like using a Raptor as an OS drive.

Every time i have to use a 7200rpm HDD as the main drive i get annoyed with how slow things seem.

Maybe it's just a placebo effect, but that tiny bit faster they seem to be makes a big difference to me...so for me, yes, my 74 GB was worth it, & my 150 GB is worth it to me.