-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
single best performing hdd
- Thread starter trance247
- Start date
GarfieldtheCat
Diamond Member
Samsung F1 1Terabyte
WD 640Gig
Samsung 640 and 320Gig (not out yet, but hopefully soon)
All the above drives have 320/333 Gig/platter, so they will be cool, quiet, and fast
WD 640Gig
Samsung 640 and 320Gig (not out yet, but hopefully soon)
All the above drives have 320/333 Gig/platter, so they will be cool, quiet, and fast
Dorkenstein
Diamond Member
Samsung F1 really? It didn't have great reviews at the 'egg, unless I was looking at the wrong drive.
i believe the raptor is still the best for overall desktop usage such as boot up/ shut down times, program open/close times, spyware/virus scan times. overall i dont think any 7200rpm drive will best the raptor in giving the user overall system snappiness...but this is with 1 raptor
with 2 raptors in r0 u won't get much gains in those benefits i've listed above. i've used 2 x 150gb raptors in r0 and didn't notice ANY difference, in fact boot up was slower. NOT WORTH IT if you're not constantly copying files across multiple drives.
with 2 raptors in r0 u won't get much gains in those benefits i've listed above. i've used 2 x 150gb raptors in r0 and didn't notice ANY difference, in fact boot up was slower. NOT WORTH IT if you're not constantly copying files across multiple drives.
alkemyst
No Lifer
There is one site (I think Tom's Hardware) that pegs it above just about everything...on other sites it's near the top.
The F1's are suffering a lot of issues and it's not just shipping problems some are talking about. The drive will be interesting once the flakes are worked out.
I went with a 7K1000 750GB. Better performance than the 1TB and a way better price. I wasn't looking for the fastest drive, I was looking for a GREAT home drive. I have TB's and TB's of 15k storage in the office...I don't want to hear that at home.
GarfieldtheCat
Diamond Member
Well, it *seems* that a lot of people got error messages with Samsung's HD utility, Hutil. But now Samsung has said that Hutil isn't compatible with the F1 series, and gives erroneous data.
I'm sure a few people have had bad drives (every brand does), but it seems like a lot of "bad" drives are probably functioning normally, with Hutil being the problem.
Of course, time will tell. But the F1 1TB is really fast according to several reviews. The WD 640Gig is also pretty good, since both drives have 320/333gig platters, a step up from the 7200.11 250gig platter and the 7K1000 200gig platters.
Higher density platters = less platters = less power = less heat
imported_wired247
Golden Member
I am entertained by the fact that this misspelling still works pretty well in the sentence 🙂
Apparently the F1 drives are having compatability issues with some nVidia chipsets (680i?), along with a few other strange problems. They're overall quicker than the Raptor and the Hitachi terrabyte drive, along with the new WD drives with 320gb platters (3200AAKS & 6400AAKS).
IMO you can't go wrong with any of the drives I mentionned above, aside from the Raptors. Really, why go for a drive with way less capacity for the same price? It makes no sense to me.
IMO you can't go wrong with any of the drives I mentionned above, aside from the Raptors. Really, why go for a drive with way less capacity for the same price? It makes no sense to me.
Apparently you can get better seek times than a Raptor on a large drive by creating a 150gb partition. This reduces the distance the heads need to travel.
As you seem to be alluding to, they once were worth it, but with these newer 7200rpm drives, the advantage that the Raptors once had is pretty much gone.
agathodaimon
Senior member
Are the 3200AAKS drives out yet?
Didn't find one at Newegg....
Would it be a better option vs. the raptor?
GarfieldtheCat
Diamond Member
As far as I know (and have seen), all the 640gig drives are 2-platter.
That is NOT true for the 320Gig drives. There is a new version with 1x320, and there is an old 2x166 version.
The WD will be faster in benchmarks, but I don't think you would see a real difference between the new 640 and your 7220.10. There may be, but at best I would think it is a small difference. No proof though.
The new revision of the drive has been on the market since January (apparently).
If you can find a B&M store, you can just inspect the product code before you buy one. If you look up the AT article on the drive, it will tell you the code you need to look for.
As far as the Raptor goes, this drive offers double the capacity for half the price, higher sustained data transfer rates, and slower access times (by alot).
In benchmarks, the Raptors seem to be generally quicker, but the 3200AAKS does win a fair few of the tests, and really doesn't lose by much when it does. Again, read the AT article and judge for yourself. Either drive may be better for you depending on what you need it for.
I'm going to try testing my drive with a 150gb partition to see if it can in fact beat the Raptor's access times. Apparently if you use only the outer edge of the drive it makes it considerably quicker.
MTDEW
Diamond Member
As for deciding to grab a raptor or not, It sure doesnt help that everyone that owns a raptor says they will still keep/use their current raptor.
To me that says ""the new drives are fast, but not fast enough to make me sell my raptor and replace it."
I installed windows on a friends pc some time ago with a 74gb raptor.
I do remember being amazed at how quickly it was at the desktop from a clean install.
But thats been so long ago, i really cant mentally compare it to my current 7200.10 perpendicular drive.
I can say that i still think the raptor did a clean install of Xp faster than my 7200.10, but i didnt exactly write down the times.
With all that said, i still want a raptor for my OS drive.
Wish i could test drive one for a few days to see if i personally think its worth it.
To me that says ""the new drives are fast, but not fast enough to make me sell my raptor and replace it."
I installed windows on a friends pc some time ago with a 74gb raptor.
I do remember being amazed at how quickly it was at the desktop from a clean install.
But thats been so long ago, i really cant mentally compare it to my current 7200.10 perpendicular drive.
I can say that i still think the raptor did a clean install of Xp faster than my 7200.10, but i didnt exactly write down the times.
With all that said, i still want a raptor for my OS drive.
Wish i could test drive one for a few days to see if i personally think its worth it.
GarfieldtheCat
Diamond Member
That's probably pretty true. If you have a raptor, then speed-wise, you won't gain a big enough boost to notice.
But if you need a new HD (or are uprading from an old, non-raptor), then there really isn't a reason to buy a raptor. You would be better served by buying one of the new 333gig/platter drives from WD or Samsung. The reason: less power, less heat, less noise, more storage, and lower cost.
It seems to be a problem with all NV SB chipsets for the last few generations (back to NF4). Similar to the myriad X-Fi problems out there, I'm inclined to say it comes down to piss poor core logic on NV's chipsets compounded by hack-job drivers. Still amazes me NV can't write a Vista driver that gets SMART working.....
But enough of the personal commentary, I picked up on a workaround for the F1 problems on NV chipsets by disabling NCQ (native command queueing). Problem with the F1s was they'd drop out and go offline, causing Windows to lock up. Subsequent reboots would be hit or miss whether the drive would be detected or not, often fixed by a complete shut down and cold boot. The workaround for me has prevented the drive from dropping offline. Doesn't impact performance noticeably with HDTune/HDTach and observed transfer speeds or recording with FRAPs @1920x1200 (~90MB/s real-time streaming).
I'd agree with the others though that a Raptor isn't really worth it at this point. 150GB just isn't a whole lot of storage nowadays, especially if you're into the latest games (often 1-2 DVDs or 10-20GB) or HD media (20-50GB for an HD movie @ 1080p). The improved seek times don't offer enough reason in normal use to make up for the Raptor's glaring flaws: unacceptable noise levels and low storage capacity when compared to larger 7200rpm drives and that's before you even talk about price.
taltamir
Lifer
all it should tell you is that I am too lazy to start buying and selling and reinstalling my OS for paltry gains.
OS drives for me are NOT for storing data, So weather I have a raptor 74GB or a 640GB drive with almost twice the sequential speed but 3 times the access delay in ms. Well, too much trouble. But if my raptor died I would replace it with something else.
I will say that I had one of the original 74Gb Raptors and it was quick, but when I setup my gaming rig I used 2 WD160JS and it was snappier then the Raptor, plus I had more room.
On a simular note, If NTFS uses the middle of the platter and writes outward as I believe it does, then a smaller partition would seem to make sense from a performance gain perspective. If it writes from the 1st sector in, there would be no gain.
On a simular note, If NTFS uses the middle of the platter and writes outward as I believe it does, then a smaller partition would seem to make sense from a performance gain perspective. If it writes from the 1st sector in, there would be no gain.
taltamir
Lifer
you don't need to store data on it. I am only using 20GB on my 75GB raptor. I would only use 20GB of a 640GB boot drive. If the drive is CHEAPER AND FASTER why wouldn't you get it? just don't use the extra space at the moment, and in the future when you move drives around you have something of greater value.
Or you could partition it and using intel matrix raid to get a raid1 of the unused space on the boot drive and the space from other drives. or you could partition it and just use backup software to keep the data on two drives. etc
Or you could be a person who never suffered a HDD failure. And just keep the data on one drive without any backups.
Or you could partition it and using intel matrix raid to get a raid1 of the unused space on the boot drive and the space from other drives. or you could partition it and just use backup software to keep the data on two drives. etc
Or you could be a person who never suffered a HDD failure. And just keep the data on one drive without any backups.