WD raptor 150

[burntfish]

anybody else using it?

what's your hdtach and hdtune benchmarks?

i just need a reference since i feel the drive isnt loading anything faster than my old seagate barracuda.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: burntfish
anybody else using it?

what's your hdtach and hdtune benchmarks?

i just need a reference since i feel the drive isnt loading anything faster than my old seagate barracuda.

that's because it ISN'T that much faster than a normal hard drive

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: burntfish
anybody else using it?

what's your hdtach and hdtune benchmarks?

i just need a reference since i feel the drive isnt loading anything faster than my old seagate barracuda.

that's because it ISN'T that much faster than a normal hard drive

:thumbsup:

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I once read somewhere: "Raptors aren't worth it unless you are going RAID. And a two-disk RAID-array is not it."

 

[jimmypage13]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: burntfish
anybody else using it?

what's your hdtach and hdtune benchmarks?

i just need a reference since i feel the drive isnt loading anything faster than my old seagate barracuda.

that's because it ISN'T that much faster than a normal hard drive

QFT

 

[burntfish]

so what justify the huge price difference between a raptor and a regular drive

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: burntfish
anybody else using it?

what's your hdtach and hdtune benchmarks?

i just need a reference since i feel the drive isnt loading anything faster than my old seagate barracuda.

that's because it ISN'T that much faster than a normal hard drive

Well I notice a lot of things start up faster than when I had a regular hard drive. 🙂

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: burntfish
so what justify the huge price difference between a raptor and a regular drive

Good marketing

 

[leegroves86]

I upgraded from a Seagate 7200.9 160 GB HDD w/ sata 3.0gb to a Raptor 150. At the time, the seagate was one of the newest, fastest 7200rpm HDDs around. But wow, there was a big difference in the raptor. Things just load so much quicker. Opening a folder that contains lots of pictures is instantaneous and all the thumbnails previews are already there. BF2 loads quicker, I usually the first one in the map (which is very sweet). and of course, Xp boots quicker, yada yada yada.

I haven't done a complete benchmark against the two yet though.... and I probably never will. I dont' care if the synthetic benchmarks tell me its 1 MB quicker or 100. I can FEEL the difference in everyday use. Lets face it, the HDD is the slowest component in your system, why would you not want the best?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: leegroves86
I upgraded from a Seagate 7200.9 160 GB HDD w/ sata 3.0gb to a Raptor 150. At the time, the seagate was one of the newest, fastest 7200rpm HDDs around. But wow, there was a big difference in the raptor. Things just load so much quicker. Opening a folder that contains lots of pictures is instantaneous and all the thumbnails previews are already there. BF2 loads quicker, I usually the first one in the map (which is very sweet). and of course, Xp boots quicker, yada yada yada.

I haven't done a complete benchmark against the two yet though.... and I probably never will. I dont' care if the synthetic benchmarks tell me its 1 MB quicker or 100. I can FEEL the difference in everyday use. Lets face it, the HDD is the slowest component in your system, why would you not want the best?

:thumbsup:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=27&threadid=1890533&enterthread=y

 

[Noubourne]

Originally posted by: burntfish
so what justify the huge price difference between a raptor and a regular drive

Nothing, in my opinion. Everyone I know who has purchased one loves them though. If I paid $2/Gig, I'd probably "love" it too, because to not love it would be to return it and/or realize what an idiot you were to pay 400% more per Gig for very little performance.

I refuse to pay 400% more unless I'm getting at least 100% more speed. And the Raptors are like 5% faster than their 7200.10 brothers who come very, very close in performance for Fifty cents a gig.

Picked up a 320G 7200.10 Seagate SATA II for $100 a couple weeks ago. I believe they're under $100 now. And you're gonna pay what for 150Gig? $300? I hope you enjoy the extra 4 seconds of BFII play you get over someone with a regular SATA II drive. Of course, they'll have twice as many games on theirs...

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
I once read somewhere: "Raptors aren't worth it unless you are going RAID. And a two-disk RAID-array is not it."

That's why I'm thinking of getting 2 more 74 giggers and doing a 4 disk raid array with all Raptors.

My tenative plans:


Conroe @ 3.6-4ghz first aircooled and then watercooled
DFI or some other Xfire mobo
2x1gb DDR2 that rocks
4x74gb WD Raptor 10k RAID 0
X1900XTX watercooled at 750/1900 and later R600 or maybe G80

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: Noubourne

Originally posted by: burntfish
so what justify the huge price difference between a raptor and a regular drive

Nothing, in my opinion. Everyone I know who has purchased one loves them though. If I paid $2/Gig, I'd probably "love" it too, because to not love it would be to return it and/or realize what an idiot you were to pay 400% more per Gig for very little performance.

I refuse to pay 400% more unless I'm getting at least 100% more speed. And the Raptors are like 5% faster than their 7200.10 brothers who come very, very close in performance for Fifty cents a gig.

Picked up a 320G 7200.10 Seagate SATA II for $100 a couple weeks ago. I believe they're under $100 now. And you're gonna pay what for 150Gig? $300? I hope you enjoy the extra 4 seconds of BFII play you get over someone with a regular SATA II drive. Of course, they'll have twice as many games on theirs...

Nope, cause chances are anyone that can afford that $2/gig has more than enough secondary storage on their other drives, so it's really a non-issue. 😉

No one is saying that the Raptors are a performance bargain, unlike the huge 7,200rpm 16MB SATA drives. All we're saying is that if money isn't a huge concern and you want the absolute BEST performance outside of SCSI, the Raptor is what you're gonna get no matter the cost.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: burntfish
anybody else using it?

what's your hdtach and hdtune benchmarks?

i just need a reference since i feel the drive isnt loading anything faster than my old seagate barracuda.

that's because it ISN'T that much faster than a normal hard drive

:thumbsup:

IT is faster than my 7200.9 and it is significantly faster.

If you don't know how to setup drives maybe that might be the reason, but I have 2 fresh installations of Windows on both drives as well as a fresh installation on my 7K250. These are 3 generations worth of drives, and when you bench them in time loading tests you can see.

http://www.atotchat.org/~montavis/dmo/comp/raptorvs7200.9.jpg

Here's a sequential read test

Most people here honestly aren't very technical when it comes to these things, and they're more bang for the buck guys, so you will see them tell you oh yea Raptor vs 7200.9 or 7200.10.. just get the 7200.10, it's "good enough."

IMO, yes it is good enough, but if you're looking for that extra ounce of performance, get the Raptor. Remember, peopel here that get Raptors are the ones that grab FX-62s and dual X1900XTXes. People can tell you that you can overclock an Opteron 170 or 175 and hit similar speeds or voltmod a 7900GT, but look at XtremeSYstems... Do you think any of the top scoring guys set clock speed records using Opteron 175s or FX-60s? All of the top scores were obtained with the fastest stock chips.

Same with HDs. You can make the case that performance at that point is only marginal, but there IS a difference.

In this case, you SHOULD be able to notice the difference.

My 7200.9 takes 3 bars of XP splash screen to get to login screen while the Raptor does it in 2 1/3. Both are fresh installations of Windows optimized the same way because I installed them 1 after the other on the same day.

Responsiveness is definitely improved, but once you get to things like loading games, your difference is only marginal, maybe a second or two at most.

But we all know responsiveness is key to system performance, and so that is why a Raptor is good in that case.

Whether it is worth it to you depends on your wallet. Do you want to shell out $200 for only 150gb of storage or woudl you shell out $200 for 640gb (2x 320gb 7200.10s in RAID-0)? Most practical people would opt for the 7200.10s but if you want uncompromising performance, Raptors are the way to go.

People who tell you Raptors are worthless are just stupid. All they really mean is that it's not worth the price, not that they don't work.