WD SATA Raptors

[lamere]

Anyone have a link to benchmarks for WD Raptor vs. SATA II's?

Is it worth the $$ in performance increase?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: lamere
Anyone have a link to benchmarks for WD Raptor vs. SATA II's?

Is it worth the $$ in performance increase?

take the sata 150 vs sataII(or 3.0Gb/s) out of the equation, it has nothing to do with it. you are comparing a 10K rpm hdd vs a 7.2K hdd, plain and simple. it is totally up to you. the 150GB raptor is a good hdd, albeit a bit $$$, but the 16MB 74GB seem to be a good deal imo.

again, don't get hung up on sataI vs sataII since current single hdds don't saturate the bandwidth of ata100 connections.

 

[lamere]

OK I found one....the Raptors are impressive indeed
http://www.barefeats.com/hard68.html

 

[SparkyJJO]

I think raptors are a waste of money IMO, I'd rather spend my 30 cents per gig than spend closer to $2 a gig just for a couple seconds shorter load time. Now if it would make windows boot in 5-10 seconds I'd definitely consider it then but only a couple seconds isn't worth it.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: lamere
OK I found one....the Raptors are impressive indeed
http://www.barefeats.com/hard68.html

beware of those numbers, they seem a little happy....usually a raptor will have a str of ~70-80MB/s for large files, and the random access time helps too.

i would do a 74GB raptor, but probably not a 150GB, too much $$$$

 

[lamere]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: lamere
OK I found one....the Raptors are impressive indeed
http://www.barefeats.com/hard68.html

beware of those numbers, they seem a little happy....usually a raptor will have a str of ~70-80MB/s for large files, and the random access time helps too.

i would do a 74GB raptor, but probably not a 150GB, too much $$$$

Why a 74GB rather than a 150?

Thanks for the replies guys...

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: lamere

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: lamere
OK I found one....the Raptors are impressive indeed
http://www.barefeats.com/hard68.html

beware of those numbers, they seem a little happy....usually a raptor will have a str of ~70-80MB/s for large files, and the random access time helps too.

i would do a 74GB raptor, but probably not a 150GB, too much $$$$

Why a 74GB rather than a 150?

Thanks for the replies guys...

price - the 150GB are still getting a premium

 

[lamere]

Originally posted by: bob4432price - the 150GB are still getting a premium

Sounds logical enough. I only have 2 80GB SATA II's here now in a raid 0 but any any time I might fill up just over half of the stripe...
I might look into those and see what I can dig up.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Seagate's 7200.10 320GB cuts performance pretty damn close. I bet you if WD and Seagate both had 10k RPM drives, Seagate would win with its current technology. 7200.10s already demolish competition, so yea...

I do have a Raptor 74GB ADFD (new 16mb one) and against my 7200.9, the Raptor wins hands down. I think it's not worth it, so why did I get it? Who knows. I think I should've gotten 2x 7200.10s as that is still on my wishlist. However, now that I have my OS on solely the Raptor, I feel a little safer with this more reliable drive.