WD7500aaks , Hitachi 32mbcache 7k1000 750gig,or Raptor?

[Infrnl]

ok,
my current drive; wd4000yr is only getting a 5.4 rating on vista. so I was thinking of getting a new drive. the 7500aaks is supposed to get a 5.9 and keeps u with the raptor150 in most cases. both drives are about the same price, but which one do you think would be better? im thinking the wd7500 just cause of more space, but would probably rather have better performance. not sure if the average guy would even see a difference between the raptor and the 7500aaks.

lmk your thoughts

 

[Blain]

The WD SE16 750GB is the bigger bang for the buck.

 

[DSF]

With big drives becoming as affordable as they are, the advantage of the Raptor just isn't there anymore.

 

[Old Hippie]

Buy a Raptor 75 for your games and programs, and use your 400 for storage.

 

[Infrnl]

what about The Hitachi 7K1000 (32mb cache)series 750gig drives compared to the wd7500aaks?
I looked for a comparison but didnt see anything and the reviews I found seem to test the hitachi 1T version. if the 750 gig performs the same then it would be a better drive than the wd aaks

 

[Psymon]

I'm going to make a recommendation to you on my own recent hard drive experiences and recent research.

The era where the Raptor was inarguably at the top of its game is over.

These days, especially if you are going to RAID0, you can get two 7200RPM 16MB Cache drives with twice the space of a Raptor, and outperform it.

Will you outperform 2 Raptors in RAID0? No. Will you come close to it at a fraction of the cost? Yes.

For the price of 1 Raptor on NewEgg I can pick up two 320GB Barracuda's with 16MB Cache's and set them up in RAID0.

Even in single comparison, one Barracuda could keep up with a Raptor at half the price.

Unless you absolutely need total performance, don't spend the extra money on a Raptor.

Edit: To answer your question on the average guy: he wouldn't see a performance difference.

I'm currently in the process of RMAing my WD Raptor and Caviar (500GB) and ordering two of the Barracuda's to set up in RAID0. I'm going to save about $100, get just as much space to hold data, and get more speed than my current set up considering it will be RAID0 whereas my Raptor is standalone.

There is obviously risks involved with RAID0, but you don't need to use it.

Bottom line, if you're going bang-for-your-buck, don't go down the path of a Raptor or any "performance" drive with high RPM's like it.

Hopefully this post helps you make a more informed decision.

 

[Infrnl]

yea, that helps a little. I am definately not going raid atm. have lost too much data from it in the past. the 320gig seagates are nice but the new WD aaks and hitachi 7k1000 series drives perform a lot better than the seagates. and 1 750 drive will cost the same as 2 320gig seagates with a little more storage

so raptor is obviously out the window as most people agree on cause of lack of storage space pretty much.

which leaves me with either the WD7500AAKS $170
Hitachi 7K1000 750gig approx $190

 

[Psymon]

Just depends on what you need.

In your situation of not going RAID0 you would be better off going with the WD7500.

 

[Infrnl]

yea im leaning towards the wd7500aaks. i think the lowest price on the hitachi is $195 and i dont think the $25 extra justifies the performance difference

 

[hclarkjr]

i have 2 WD 500gb drives in my system now. 1 is a RE2 and the other is aaks, both run great for me

 

[s44]

Definitely one of the big 32mb cache drives: speed and size.

 

[Psymon]

I think the 32MB Cache's are a bit before their time still. Kind of like DDR3 ram. Potential, but not fully established yet.

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: Infrnl
my current drive; wd4000yr is only getting a 5.4 rating on vista. so I was thinking of getting a new drive. the 7500aaks is supposed to get a 5.9 and keeps u with the raptor150 in most cases.

:frown: I can't believe you are buying a new drive just to get a better Vista rating.

Is there something wrong with the performance you are getting from your WD400? Or are you just falling for MS's scam to get everyone to buy new "Vista ready" hardware.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Infrnl
yea im leaning towards the wd7500aaks. i think the lowest price on the hitachi is $195 and i dont think the $25 extra justifies the performance difference

I am not sure a lot is as in noticeable to most people. Stuff like that is subjective anyway, some notice it more others do less. The idle/seek noise, however, seem to have somewhat pronounced difference between those. Folks over at SPCR wont even consider seagates as a valid contender; if you are a type that could live with higher noise floor, or with other loud fans/PSU that overshadow a loud hdd, then the point is moot I guess.

 

[Infrnl]

my drive do ok, but always looking for more performance. oviously the higher the score in vista; the device or what not will perform better. even the reviews show better results from the wdaaks and hitachi 7k1000 series. might not be able to see alot of difference but if its noticeable then its worth it to me. also you can never have too much hard drive space. This is also a mere thought and not 100% that I will definately get a new drive. I would like to but i think I might wait for prices to drop a bit more first.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: Psymon
stuff about RAID-0

Umm... RAID0 is pretty much a non-improvement in terms of real-world noticeable performance. It's a waste of money and halving the MTBF of your drives, for gain in very little other than synthetic benchmarks.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: Psymon
stuff about RAID-0

Umm... RAID0 is pretty much a non-improvement in terms of real-world noticeable performance. It's a waste of money and halving the MTBF of your drives, for gain in very little other than synthetic benchmarks.

I dunno how much better ATA raid has become, but last time I checked they drove up CPU utilization as well. Even if it were ever so slight, I dont think I would see it as an "improvement" hard disk drives are all too fast to have any perceivable difference, to me anyway.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: konakona

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: Psymon
stuff about RAID-0

Umm... RAID0 is pretty much a non-improvement in terms of real-world noticeable performance. It's a waste of money and halving the MTBF of your drives, for gain in very little other than synthetic benchmarks.

I dunno how much better ATA raid has become, but last time I checked they drove up CPU utilization as well. Even if it were ever so slight, I dont think I would see it as an "improvement" hard disk drives are all too fast to have any perceivable difference, to me anyway.

Indeed unless one has a dedicated hardware RAID controller, the simple RAID stuff built into motherboards these days will also use a tiny bit of CPU.

 

[Infrnl]

prices dropping a little. makes the drives look more and more attractive. wd down to $165

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Blain
The WD SE16 750GB is the bigger bang for the buck.