Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache
- Thread starter cyberkost
- Start date
I'm about to pull the trigger on it. I don't particularly care about the window (the case I'm using does have a window, but you can't see sh$t into the drive cage). Are there any other reasond to choose AHFD (the one with window) over ADFD (no window)? I suspect there might be as the former has been released after the latter...
inevitable bump
inevitable bump
The only difference I saw is that the one with the Window was said to be noisier, one customer comment:
wow 10 db difference just because a window is used? that's hard to believe..
but i'm too lazy to do my own research, so i'll just move on along ^^'
but i'm too lazy to do my own research, so i'll just move on along ^^'
Okay I have been seeing these Raptor deals for quite sometime.
Looking at their prices, it would be stupid to ask the question, "Is there something funky about this"
There obviously is.
So I will still ask. Is the performance of the Raptor so great that it commands almost 4 times the price for a same size regular hard drive? And still be called a great deal.
If this can greatly speed up the boot time for Windows XP then I pull the trigger and use it as the main drive where the OS resides.
Are there any benchmarks about how fast is that.
Anyone who knows presice information please share. Just give the hard numbers in short. Please dont point me to sites where there are reviews, I can find them myself.
neo
Looking at their prices, it would be stupid to ask the question, "Is there something funky about this"
There obviously is.
So I will still ask. Is the performance of the Raptor so great that it commands almost 4 times the price for a same size regular hard drive? And still be called a great deal.
If this can greatly speed up the boot time for Windows XP then I pull the trigger and use it as the main drive where the OS resides.
Are there any benchmarks about how fast is that.
Anyone who knows presice information please share. Just give the hard numbers in short. Please dont point me to sites where there are reviews, I can find them myself.
neo
well... the benchmarks ARE the hard numbers... and for the most part, they show that the (newest) raptor drives are more-or-less the top of the line in desktop hard drives.
however, the general rule of thumb is that the extra money you'd spend on a raptor would be much better spent upgrading almost any other component on your computer. even in benchmarks, hard drive performance doesn't vary that much - and in real world applications, it's almost unnoticeably different - so you'll find that adding a GB of RAM or a better CPU or faster vid card will create a FAR more noticeable difference for the same amount of money.
so, if your system is already maxed out and you have money to burn, you could probably justify paying the premium (twice the cost for half the disk space) of a raptor. or, if you do very hard drive intensive tasks or really need your games/OS to load a few seconds quicker, you can also consider one. otherwise, get a Sata II drive with 16mb cache and perpendicular recording, and you won't be missing a thing
Thanks for the explanation brikis98.
I am totally maxed out with respect to MB, CPU, RAM and Video although RAM still has headroom left.
I just built the new rig with E6600.
So things are pretty fast. The only thing that I still get frustrated is the time XP takes to load. So I was wondering if the Raptor could really help speed it up that would be nice, like 4 times faster then I would definately buy it.
But then after reading your post and with regular common sense (with reagrds to computers) I am better off employing the usual ways to speed things up while booting, like removing programs that startup, cleaning up the register etc.
Windows Vista does come up fast and lets you work, even though in the background it still is busy loading up. I guess it uses the Dual core feature properly.
So i will pass this for now.
neo
I am totally maxed out with respect to MB, CPU, RAM and Video although RAM still has headroom left.
I just built the new rig with E6600.
So things are pretty fast. The only thing that I still get frustrated is the time XP takes to load. So I was wondering if the Raptor could really help speed it up that would be nice, like 4 times faster then I would definately buy it.
But then after reading your post and with regular common sense (with reagrds to computers) I am better off employing the usual ways to speed things up while booting, like removing programs that startup, cleaning up the register etc.
Windows Vista does come up fast and lets you work, even though in the background it still is busy loading up. I guess it uses the Dual core feature properly.
So i will pass this for now.
neo
thus, as of right now, the Raptor's primary advantages remain in the non-server field. Here the WD1500 once again demonstrates that efficient code coupled with a large buffer is the dominant factor when it comes to solving today's localized data access patterns. Manufacturers of 10K and 15K RPM SCSI drives simply do not take the time (and indeed, do not really care one way or another) to cater to the non-server market by aggressively coding and continuously refining firmware for single-user access paradigms.
If high capacities are relatively unimportant and money is no object, it is the Raptor WD1500, not a 15,000 RPM SCSI unit, that is the drive to get for single-user setups.
If high capacities are relatively unimportant and money is no object, it is the Raptor WD1500, not a 15,000 RPM SCSI unit, that is the drive to get for single-user setups.
Neocor,
What drive are you using now?
When the original Raptor (36gig) came out ... it offered a tangable "everything loads faster" over the other drives on the market, especially in RAID setups vs similar sized drives (2x36gig Raptors vs 1x80gig). I used to run a 3x36gig RAID 0 Array as my main drive when I was doing alot of Battlefield LANs. I was typicly the first to get the map loaded up and first to the planes ... Then other people started buying raptors and I wasn't first to the planes anymore
Depending on your needs there's a 500GB WD (I think it's the "RE") and the Segate 750GB 7200.10 offer near the performance of a Raptor due to the incredible density of the data.
If you really want crazy fast load times though drop 2, 3, or even 4 of those raptors into a RAID 0 array off the northbridge chipset. Just keep backups of everything that's critical (backups ... a whole other discussion) and know that you may have to rebuild the software on your setup if there is a drive failure.
What drive are you using now?
When the original Raptor (36gig) came out ... it offered a tangable "everything loads faster" over the other drives on the market, especially in RAID setups vs similar sized drives (2x36gig Raptors vs 1x80gig). I used to run a 3x36gig RAID 0 Array as my main drive when I was doing alot of Battlefield LANs. I was typicly the first to get the map loaded up and first to the planes
... Then other people started buying raptors and I wasn't first to the planes anymore Depending on your needs there's a 500GB WD (I think it's the "RE") and the Segate 750GB 7200.10 offer near the performance of a Raptor due to the incredible density of the data.
If you really want crazy fast load times though drop 2, 3, or even 4 of those raptors into a RAID 0 array off the northbridge chipset. Just keep backups of everything that's critical (backups ... a whole other discussion) and know that you may have to rebuild the software on your setup if there is a drive failure.
Originally posted by: VooDooAddict
Neocor,
What drive are you using now?
When the original Raptor (36gig) came out ... it offered a tangable "everything loads faster" over the other drives on the market, especially in RAID setups vs similar sized drives (2x36gig Raptors vs 1x80gig). I used to run a 3x36gig RAID 0 Array as my main drive when I was doing alot of Battlefield LANs. I was typicly the first to get the map loaded up and first to the planes
Depending on your needs there's a 500GB WD (I think it's the "RE") and the Segate 750GB 7200.10 offer near the performance of a Raptor due to the incredible density of the data.
If you really want crazy fast load times though drop 2, 3, or even 4 of those raptors into a RAID 0 array off the northbridge chipset. Just keep backups of everything that's critical (backups ... a whole other discussion) and know that you may have to rebuild the software on your setup if there is a drive failure.
well... if you read anandtech or storagereview's articles on RAID 0, you'd see that it's typically NOT something you need on a (single user) home desktop. the performance benefits are limited to a few applications (game loading) and are not significant. on the other hand, each additional drive in a RAID 0 configuration significantly increases the probability of failure... and with RAID 0, if one drives fails, all your data is gone.
if you go with any RAID config, try something with at least some redundancy, like 1+0, 5, etc...
What is going on with your PC that you're so frustrated with the Windows boot time that you're almost willing to spend $200 just to make it boot a little faster? 20 - 30 seconds is too slow for you?
Besides benchmarks, you have to consider that the Raptor line of drives are built to much higher standards than "regular" drives. They use server grade components which are more dependable and longer lasting. I'm going on 4 years now with my 36GB RAID0 Raptor setup, I really like it.
4 years isn't that long, I have a 5400 RPM hard drive that's 7 years old and has been distributing files 24/7 for the last 3 years and it's still going. If you want high speeds and really safe data then create a mirrored raid array. Raptors have better seek time but the only place their speed makes a noticeable difference in performance is program load times and when you transfer from a mirrored array you get speeds higher than from a single raptor. The write speed of a mirrored array is just as slow as a normal drive but it actually reads at double the rate of a single drive and you have the huge bonus of having everything completely backed up. If one of the hard drives fails your computer will keep running like nothing happened, it won't so much as restart let alone loss info. Raptors may be fast and well built but they are slower and more likely to fail than two mirrored drives.
If you wait for a good deal you can get 100Gb SATA drives for $20 (Office Depot recently had this after rebate and Black Friday is coming). Put two in parallel and you have 100Gb of storage that will read data a little faster than a raptor for only $40. If you really want good load times and have a motherboard or card that supports it you can get 4 and put them in parallel for a 100Gb array that will kill a raptor when it comes to load times and be 4 times redundant for a cost of $80.
Originally posted by: brikis98
Originally posted by: VooDooAddict
Neocor,
What drive are you using now?
When the original Raptor (36gig) came out ... it offered a tangable "everything loads faster" over the other drives on the market, especially in RAID setups vs similar sized drives (2x36gig Raptors vs 1x80gig). I used to run a 3x36gig RAID 0 Array as my main drive when I was doing alot of Battlefield LANs. I was typicly the first to get the map loaded up and first to the planes
Depending on your needs there's a 500GB WD (I think it's the "RE") and the Segate 750GB 7200.10 offer near the performance of a Raptor due to the incredible density of the data.
If you really want crazy fast load times though drop 2, 3, or even 4 of those raptors into a RAID 0 array off the northbridge chipset. Just keep backups of everything that's critical (backups ... a whole other discussion) and know that you may have to rebuild the software on your setup if there is a drive failure.
well... if you read anandtech or storagereview's articles on RAID 0, you'd see that it's typically NOT something you need on a (single user) home desktop. the performance benefits are limited to a few applications (game loading) and are not significant. on the other hand, each additional drive in a RAID 0 configuration significantly increases the probability of failure... and with RAID 0, if one drives fails, all your data is gone.
if you go with any RAID config, try something with at least some redundancy, like 1+0, 5, etc...
I'm not going to argue with the benchmarks ... I'm just saying at the time when the 36Gig raptor was new. I found my level load times much better with RAID 0 then with single raptors. That was the only place I noticed a signifigant differance over non-raided Raptors. At the time I had a higher income and it was worth the $$ just for faster level load times. Today, I think the $$ is better spent on a higher density drive.
Just keep in mind that a hard drive is something that will last during computer upgrades. CPUs will be upgraded as time goes on, but the hard drive is always going to be something that will stick through for your next computer.
When you build your next computer, i'm sure you will have a better CPU. However, the hard drive upgrade will still be with you. I've seen the difference with using a raptor, whenever I build a new computer I usually suggest going with a raptor if they want the extra bit of performance.
People can say "money is better spent on a better CPU" the problem is that you'll spend a lot of money over time as you upgrade your computer. When you go upgrade your comp again, you'll have to get the next CPU up to get the performance the raptor gives.
Don't believe the benchmarks, don't believe what I or anyone else says about the raptor (in terms of it being a good/bad buy). Go down to a computer store and see for yourself.
When you build your next computer, i'm sure you will have a better CPU. However, the hard drive upgrade will still be with you. I've seen the difference with using a raptor, whenever I build a new computer I usually suggest going with a raptor if they want the extra bit of performance.
People can say "money is better spent on a better CPU" the problem is that you'll spend a lot of money over time as you upgrade your computer. When you go upgrade your comp again, you'll have to get the next CPU up to get the performance the raptor gives.
Don't believe the benchmarks, don't believe what I or anyone else says about the raptor (in terms of it being a good/bad buy). Go down to a computer store and see for yourself.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter