Ok i'm most likely will get one. Can you raid a raptor hd and a regluar 7200rpm hd? :twisted:
You can, but there are so many reasons why you shouldn't.
Also do compare the Raptor to the first 36 / 75 / 150 GB of another HDD (say a 300 GB) and not the entire 300 GB.
You may notice that if you partition and benchmark only the first 74 GB of a 300 GB HDD it will outperform the 74 GB @ 10,000 rpm HDD. When looking at the graphs do remember if comparing a 74 GB to a 300 GB to only look at the 1st 74 GB of said 300 GB (hope that reads well).
The outside zone of the Raptors is very fast yes, but towards the middle / end (which is still in the outside 3rd for a 300 GB remember ?) they suddenly do not look so fast anymore. Then bring into account if you only partition the outside zones of a 300 GB HDD the average seek time is also comparable to the 10,000 rpm 74 GB HDD.
I'll try and find the test results (they are on TomsHardware), but remember only to look at the 1st 74 GB of another HDD, then compare the speeds / seek performance on only the 1st 74 GB for an equal comparison...... Then if need be you can always partition the remaining space later on anyway, may end up being just as fast, at a lower cost, with space to spare.
OK a picture is a thousand words, right ?
http://images.tomshardware.com/2005/12/16/seagates_half_a_terabyte_hard_drive_comes_at_a_price/image022.gif
80%+ of techs will say it is slow, because of the 30 MB/sec minimum DTR.... compared to the 74 GB WD Raptor that is right ?.... but what if you only partition the 1st 74 GB ? (of the Seagate 500 GB, not best example but shows what I mean well.)
Look at the above graph again, but bear in mind the minimum transfer rate is only 60 MB/sec ish
in the first 74 GB. (If you only partition 74 GB, or just that for OS / Games, etc that is). The maximum is similar, and read/write performance is also very close. If working with data in close proximity (same partition) the effective seek time is also lowered (to similar to a Raptor 74 GB).
An apples to apples comparison of different sized drives should only compare performance of the first X GB. X being the size of the smallest drive in the 'tests'. Then for 'additional information' compare the results over the full HDD, noting that the larger drives give more space, but perhaps equal or greater 'minimum' performance if setup to emulate the smaller HDD it is being compared to. (Get it ?.... I hope so, because it is hard to explain in 1-pass)
Of course, the same example comparing a 74 GB Raptor to a 300-500 GB HDD might be more practical and open a few peoples eyes. (If they think about it anyway).
Now (assuming you're mostly savvy with how a HDD works), how much wiser do you feel ?
(ala: Neet trick no ?)
(Remember the larger HDD doesn't need to seek as far when configured as above, so it improves more than DTR.....)
Contact info available from:
http://users.on.net/~darkpeace
WOW 8O 8O 8O