Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus
Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX
You guys are completely missing the point of Raptor
RAIDing 2 7200rpm would not see that gain you are suppose to see of what Raptors are suppose to made for
It's the access time not transfer rate. If you want transfer rate for video editing you would probably go with RAID 0 2*200GB drives for the capacity
Raptors triumph in access time, which makes applications and Windows load noticeably faster, and to mention swap files as well. (I meant Single HDD setup. RAID 0 increases access time which is bad)
Also, normal desktop usage involves not-so-frequently defragmentated drives. A heavily fragmentated drive would mean locating file chunks slower. This applies to every HDD. However, with Raptor's lower access time, the effect is less pronounced. Therefore you might just see a more than expected performance gain if you don't defragment HDD a lot.
RAID 0 them and you lose a bit of access time, making the benefit less obvious. However RAID 0 does give Raptor a whooping transfer speed. Again it doesn't benefit many people. Video editing being the only field beneficial, people could have used RAIDed larger capacity drives instead
So you'd NEVER wanted to RAID Raptor drives. Not to forget the increased security risk over RAID 0 as well
I've heard many people saying that applications and overall feel of system improved when using Raptors as OS drive.
This isn'y hype, but speculation and through analysis
i would just like to throw this out there then, since money isnt that much of a concern in this thread, and performance is
Get the Hitachi 500Gigabyte SataII drive, it easily beat a 74gig Raptor (mind you, thats a single 500Gb 7200 rpm beating out a single 74gig Raptor) in a performance anylsis. Thats not speculation, thats fact
and just to let everyone know, im not making this up, im simply listing another option for you. Why not get a drive that not only quadruples the capacity of a raptor, but also out performs it? (it does this because Hitachi only used two platters on this drive, thereby decreasing seek times and access times)
Yes. If you have noticed the benchmarks, I know the 500GB drive beats Raptor in benchmarks largely involving sequential file reading
Let me remind you (you obviously didn't read my post throughly)
All the benchmarks carried out are in unreal tightly controlled enviornment. The drives are ALL defragmentated. Who on the earth would defrag their HDD everytime they install a game and an application?
With heavy fragmentated drives, Raptor's access time help it to have lower performance impact of fragmentations than a normal 7200 rpm drive
You must think I am a Raptor fanboy. But I advice people to go on large capacity drives as their storage drive because, as your benchmark is right, the transfer rate of new generation drives are SLIGHTLY HIGHER than Raptor, thanks to their higher aerial density. That would make VIDEO EDITING and GAME LOADING faster.
However, you neglect the point that Raptors still have their uses as OS drives. The OS loading benchmarks show Raptor loaded Windows nearly twice as fast as 7200rpm drives, thanks to the access time. (Not on your case, because you are using the underperforming 36GB Raptor, and you RAIDed them which means higher access time. Note that Windows loading does not depend on transfer rate, but access time) Application loading, which also involve loading small chunks of data (which means not dependent on transfer speed) , is on average 20% faster on Raptor
That means, if you have an OS drive for Raptor, where applications will be install on it, and a large capacity storage drive for storing games, movies, music, etc. You;d see NOTICEABLE performance gain in windows loading, application loading and general windows performance gain, thanks also to swap file being much faster on a Raptor
In conclusion, I am just saying. You were wrong that saying Raptor is a hype
Because you used a wrong setup of RAID 0 36GB comparing the wrong area
You compared windows loading with your friend, which has fundamental problem in your analysis; of that Windows loading time depends heavily on access time not transfer speed. Although RAID 0 improves transfer speed, it decreases access time. The 36GB Raptors are also known to be poor performers, much worse compared to 74GB. So that I wouldn't be suprised of your computer's poor windows loading performance, as well as the sythetic HDD benchmark. I understand how you think. But your argument was just wrong
And you were right about the newest drives having higher TRANSFER performance than Raptor. However, if you look at everyday usage instead of sythetic benchmarks or game loading test which depend on transfer rate, you'd see Raptor has its uses as OS drive, where applications loading time and Windows loading time are still a notch faster.
So pairing up with a say 200GB storage drive, you can install games on the storage drive, you get best of both access time (for Windows and papplications) and transfer speed (Video editing, game loading)
) but on benchmarks, the difference is even worse.
Facebook
Twitter