• 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.

SSD Vs Velociraptor

B

Blackfirevatsal

Member
Guys can you guys tell me which is fastest Drive between SSD's & Velociraptor?

&

I have heard that SSD are very very fast plus they are very dependable (means they will give you warning that when they will die), is this true?
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
SSD

I would be willing to bet that even the $80 OCZ SSD is faster than the Velociraptor.
Click to expand...

No. Perhaps in synthetic benchmarks but in real world with simultaneous read/writes those cheapies are horrible!

VR's are right up there with 10K 2.5" SAS drives. The latter will have slightly higher IOPS in server apps and slower in desktop apps as is the norm with SATA vs. SCSI/SAS has always been. 2.5" format rules for now (to be superseded by 1.8" disks! :Q)
 
Only the Intel (and perhaps Toshiba's new SSDs) are faster than the V-Raptor. The Toshiba's haven't been reviewed yet AFAIK.

Oh, and listen to Ruby.
 
SSD's that are in the same price class as the Velociraptor faster? Hell no.

Yep, back to the Velociraptors for me. I had 4x 30GB V2's in raid 0 on a decent raid card. The card helped the SSD's a lot but there were still times when the system was unresponsive. With or without the SSD fixes...it didn't matter. Yes they were fast at loading games.. and pretty awesome when they weren't causing problems, but still not worth it over a Velociraptor. Stay clear of any Jmicron based MLC drives....at least until the new controller comes out and hopefully proves itself.

There are a few out there that will say all the problems are solved when running these drives on a raid card...for the most part it's just not true. It makes me wonder if they actually try to do anything other than loading programs.

The X25-M is another story though...and hopefully so will the new OCZ Vertex SSD's along with the new Samsungs coming out. I really hope these new SSD's can compete with the Intel at a much lower price point. :beer:


 
MLC drives with the new JMicron controller should start hitting the market in Q1 2009.

I'm personally not seriously considering a buy until the new generation of drives has been thoroughly tested by AT and found not to suffer the stutter problem any longer. Which might make it Q2 or later, depending on their backlog. But when spending that kind of cash, better safe than sorry.
 
Originally posted by: gizbug
So, does the Velociraptor really beef up your system when used as a boot drive with windows?
Click to expand...

You would be amazed at how little impact it has.

Just wait a little and go SSD.

Right now the best mechanical hard drive is the WD 640gb Black Edition IMO. Sure the raptor is faster, but you could buy 3 of the Blacks for the same price, which would give you close to 2 terrabytes with very comparable performance.
 
When you are working on a budget cheap SATA RAID is the only way to go imho. 3 x 500GB Seagate 7200.12 = $194 shipped. You are looking at read speeds in the ballpark of a $500 Intel SSD and 18 times the storage capacity.

Raptors are neat but obsolete. If price isn't a concern Intel SSDs are godlike, IOdrives are sick, 15k RPM SAS drives are quicker, and arrays of inexpensive disks can be redundant, speedy, and massive.
 
I don't understand why people only name the Intel as the performance SSD. What about MemoRight? What about Mtron? They certainly give the Intel a run for its money as well, don't they?
 
Yes. The Mtron and certainly the Memoright are just as fast if not faster than the intel in most situations.
In some instances even the intel (MLC) can "stutter" or halt (although it is very rare and it supposedly only affects the active program).
 
MTBF is a tool used for estimating failure rate.
* It doesn't mean that every drive in the product line will fail sooner than the estimate.
* It doesn't mean that every drive in the product line will last longer than the estimate.
It's simply a measurement that all HD manufacturers spend time and resources on calculating.
 
The new OCZ vertex with 64MB are going to smoke the new intels 200MB read, 160MB write. $274 for a 60GB.

Or you could go 3 x OCZ Core Series V2 $75 a nice hardware RAID card (300) with on board memory, people are getting 500MB+ read speed

http://i4memory.com/f9/ocz-cor...raid-controller-10744/

Otherwise wait for the 80GB ioXtreme (if it exists) 500MB/s to 700MB/s read and 600MB write. Just under $1000 release Q1.

 
Originally posted by: Blain
MTBF is a tool used for estimating failure rate.
* It doesn't mean that every drive in the product line will fail sooner than the estimate.
* It doesn't mean that every drive in the product line will last longer than the estimate.
It's simply a measurement that all HD manufacturers spend time and resources on calculating.
Click to expand...

actually it takes REPAIR into account... item fails, is repair, and fails again, and repaired again, the mean of the "time" it stays "working" between each failure is called the MTBF (mean time between failures).

The issue is that it is on guesses and numbers they are literally pulling out of their ass. They have obviously not tested a hard drive for thousands of years, to get 153 years of operation on average between each repair.

What it DOES mean that EVERY SINGLE DRIVE from that line WILL fail LONG BEFORE the allotted time. Because the allotted time is pure bullshit.
 
oh, in regards to the original question, as has been said, the velociraptor is hands down better, except for a few specific and expensive SSDs like the intel one. (not all expensive ones are good though, some are just rip offs)
 
Originally posted by: Blain
Originally posted by: ochadd
If price isn't a concern Intel SSDs are godlike,
Click to expand...
Please clarify... Intel X25-M or Intel X25-E?
Click to expand...

Either one. The M gives up allot of writes for extended capacity using MLC tech. It reads just as fast as the E and you save $100. For a desktop machine the M model makes a better fit.

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I don't understand why people only name the Intel as the performance SSD. What about MemoRight? What about Mtron? They certainly give the Intel a run for its money as well, don't they?
Click to expand...

Last I saw there isn't a single competitor that can compare to Intel's performance. Intel is 150% faster in reads and 70% fast in writes using SLC. MLC drive is 150% faster in reads and gives up about 30% in writes.
 
Im just patiently waiting until I can afford a fast 250+ gig SSD to replace the shitty slow ass 5400rpm drive in my laptop. Probably by the time that comes around though I'll have bought a new laptop with a SSD in it already
 
Originally posted by: yh125d
Im just patiently waiting until I can afford a fast 250+ gig SSD to replace the shitty slow ass 5400rpm drive in my laptop. Probably by the time that comes around though I'll have bought a new laptop with a SSD in it already
Click to expand...

Why not get an Intel X25M and an external drive for storage? Been running the X25 as my system drive for a month now and I'll attest that it's the best single component upgrade I've done.
 
Originally posted by: azilaga
Been running the X25 as my system drive for a month now and I'll attest that it's the best single component upgrade I've done.
Click to expand...
I've said that about many components. :thumbsup:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top