Raptor vs 1TB hard drive

[cbn]

I am toying with the idea of getting a 300 GB Raptor but wonder how much it would slow down if I used up most of its capacity?

For example while a larger 1TB hard drive only spins @7200 rpm 300GB of data would occupy mostly the peripheral part of the platter. So even though it is spinning slower the read/write arm is actually covering more platter "surface area" compared to a fully filled smaller hard drive running at the same 7200 rpm.

So with these smaller "Raptor" drives I would expect a greater drop-off in performance would occur as their small capacity is filled up. (10,000 rpm but the read/write arm is using more and more of a smaller radius while it spins around the platter)

 

[Rifter]

I have a 1TB seagte 7,200rpm with less than 300GB on it right now and its not even close to as fast as my buddys raptor and he has it filled to %90 capacity, he has his OS and all games installed on it and has seperate drive for media. We have similer systems. If you want the fastest there is no beating the raptor(well SSD but thats another story). I just asked him and he said he noticed no difference as it filled up, he is not the most observant person though. All i know is he shows up in games WAY faster than i do 🙂

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: Just learning
I am toying with the idea of getting a 300 GB Raptor but wonder how much it would slow down if I used up most of its capacity?

For example while a larger 1TB hard drive only spins @7200 rpm 300GB of data would occupy mostly the peripheral part of the platter. So even though it is spinning slower the read/write arm is actually covering more platter "surface area" compared to a fully filled smaller hard drive running at the same 7200 rpm.

So with these smaller "Raptor" drives I would expect a greater drop-off in performance would occur as their small capacity is filled up. (10,000 rpm but the read/write arm is using more and more of a smaller radius while it spins around the platter)

I was just curious because as the Raptor filled up the read/write head would be using a smaller and smaller radius while the platter spun around @ 10,000 rpm.

Theoretically a smaller radius @ 10,000 rpm could actually be less surface area traveled per unit time than a larger radius spinning @ 7200 rpm. (However, I have never actually seen the platters of a hard drive so I don't know how big and small the max and minimum radius could be). Actually I first read about this in the most recent Anandtech article on SSDs.

 

[Blain]

The VelociRaptor drive platters have a diameter of 2.5" while the 1TB drives are 3.5".

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: Blain
The VelociRaptor drive platters have a diameter of 2.5" while the 1TB drives are 3.5".

Thanks.

So have any tests been run comparing something like a 1.5 TB drive to a 300GB drive when 200GB is loaded on to each of them?

With the 300GB Raptor that 200GB would be spaced much closer to the center of the platter where its smaller diameter would start negating any advantage of the higher rpms (or at least that is what I think would happen).

Someone correct me if this idea or theory is wrong.

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: Blain
The VelociRaptor drive platters have a diameter of 2.5" while the 1TB drives are 3.5".

Thanks.

So have any tests been run comparing something like a 1.5 TB drive to a 300GB drive when 200GB is loaded on to each of them?

With the 300GB Raptor that 200GB would be spaced much closer to the center of the platter where its smaller diameter would start negating any advantage of the higher rpms (or at least that is what I think would happen).

Someone correct me if this idea or theory is wrong.

In terms of linear read speeds that may be the case, the larger drive may be faster at the 300gig mark. The other thing to consider is access times, as well as random read and write times. In these scenarious VRaptors come out on top easily.

The 2.5" vs 3.5" form factor is an interesting debate. While the 3.5" drives allow for greater speeds due to the larger diameter at the start of the disk, in 2.5" drives the head has to move a shorter distance.

Either way, my 150gig Vraptor is as fast if not faster than my olded two 74 gig raptors in RAID 0. For an OS drive its night and day difference for me comparing a VRaptor and a standard 7200rpm drive.

 

[nyker96]

i saw some benchmarks on this drive, raptor is still faster in areas requiring seek time like booting up OS etc. sustained seq read the new 500 platter seagate is almost neck to neck with raptor but that is just one area. 7200.12 actually is quite slow in many other read/write patterns even slower than previous generation drives. so I can't say I'm too impressed.

one last thing it is better at is lower power consumption, it runs at the level of WD green drive which is good. also less noisy than the WD Blacks by far at full seek. but it pays with performance.