Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAID 0 --> (2) 74GB RAPTORS or... (2) 100GB WD HDDS?

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 19, 2006 12:25:08 PM

I have the option of getting two 100gb WD hdds and set them up in raid 0. Or, the possibility of buying two WD740s and set them up in raid 0.

I cant find any benchmarks on the internet that show anything like this. How much difference in performance am I going to see? I'm not a hardcore video editor, I play games like HL2, Source, DOD source and I do a lot of photoshopping.

Is it worth the extra $300 cdn? What do you guys think?
February 19, 2006 3:27:05 PM

No one can answer that question without knowing more about your other components, your budget, your expectations and maybe your planned upgrade path.

Right now whats best for me is a single 74 GB Raptor for my system partition, and use mirrored WD 400 GB RE2 for storage.

To give you an example I my system has been evolving over the past 4 years and here is roughly the priorites.

1) A good monitor (19" Mitsubishi Diamontron)
2) A 2nd dispaly (make software dev/web design easier)
3) A big comfortable desk (corner desks are great for dual monitors)
4) A big comfortable chair.
5) A 27" TV that accepts 1024x768 from my PC.
6) Decent Home Theater Reciever and Speakers
7) XFi ExtreemMusic connected to my home theater system
8) NF4 Motherboard, AMD64 CPU, X800XL GC, 2x512GB PC4400
10) Sony MDR V6 Headphones (very acurrate, great for 3d gaming)
11) Logitech MX1000 Laster Mouse, MS Natural Keyboard
12) 74 GB Raptor
13) Quiet Seasonic 600 Watt PS
14) 2 400 GB RE2 Hard drives in RAID 0.

I am not considering a 2nd Raptor, because my backup softare doesn't like to restore to RAID 0 arrays.

I experiment with new software a lot and being able to have my system up and running the way it used to in less than 10 minutes is an absolute must.

I also have friends how don't tinker with their software as much and so they can go years wihtout having to reinstall or restore from a backup.

---
Anyway mostly what you are going to get out of a faster hard drive is faster installations and shorter load times for both applications and games.

Moving from level to level in a game will be a bit faster, but it usually won't be a night and day difference.

---
If everything else is top notch and all your other priorties are met buy the Raptors without a 2nd thought.

If you are paying games in an uncomfortable chair with a 17 " monitor on a rickety table with a mouse whose cord drives you nuts, trying to find out where those gunshots are comming from using $5 headphones then those Raptors begin to lose their luster.
February 19, 2006 7:43:41 PM

Quote:
If you are paying games in an uncomfortable chair with a 17 " monitor on a rickety table with a mouse whose cord drives you nuts, trying to find out where those gunshots are comming from using $5 headphones then those Raptors begin to lose their luster.

lol!

Quote:
No one can answer that question without knowing more about your other components, your budget, your expectations and maybe your planned upgrade path.

My "Other components"
Case ::: Thermaltake Armor
Power Supply ::: Libert 620W
Motherboard ::: A8N32-SLI DLX
CPU ::: Athlon X2 4400+
RAM ::: OCZ 2gb Platinum
GFX Card ::: XFX 7800GT 256MB
Monitor ::: Hyundai L90D+
Mouse ::: Logitech MX518
Keyboard ::: G15 Gaming Keyboard
OS ::: XP 64 Pro

My budget is on the high side. $3grand CDN.
My plans to upgrade are another XFX 7800GT
I expect it to be fast haha

I just want to know whether your really gonna notice the difference. RAID 0 is way faster than an ordinary SATA Hard Drive. But whats the difference between the two sets of raids and is it worth the extra $300 cdn :p 
Related resources
February 19, 2006 8:38:57 PM

For what your doing, no.
Your going to see an improvement with RAID 0 with the 100Gig drives over a single drive already.

If you have the cash to burn and want your levels to load up even a few seconds faster, then yes.

How much faster? Pick one of your favorite games and go check on a forum for that game. I've seen the discussion about RAID 0 on almost every game forum there is.
February 22, 2006 7:14:45 PM

Well i am running two SATA Western Digital 36Gb 8Mb cache Raptors as a RAID0 in my system as the operating system drive and they are running quite zippily with a benchmarked burst speed of around 90Mb/s

My SATA II 250Gb 16Mb cache Western Digital Benchmarks at around 133Mb/s so it is a little faster but then again it is just a data drive

You do definately notice a difference between a 10k rpm drive to a 7200 rpm drive for sure.
February 22, 2006 9:09:26 PM

is that stuff what you already have or what your going to buy out of that 3 grande, cause if you already have it i can't see many ways to spend 3000 other than getting 2 x1900xt's and z5500 speakers, an amazing sound card, and i don't know... 30 in lcd lol
February 22, 2006 9:16:54 PM

i'm buying that stuff up there :p 
February 22, 2006 9:27:11 PM

well in that case i wouldn't even get RAID, i would get the western digital se 16 250gig 7200rpm. I really don't think that loading times are THAT big of a problem that you need to spend all that money, and since your getting that good RAM like i'm getting and 2 gigs like me, your comp won't always be going back to the HD while playing so the hd speed isn't that big of an issue.
February 22, 2006 10:24:36 PM

what about initial loading time? boot up time? I'm picky I like it quick. I am getting one or the other. The question is how much am i really really gonna notice between the raptors and normal satas.
February 22, 2006 10:37:03 PM

no enough to worry about getting raptors, or pay more money, or listen to all the noise they make, in my opinion.

personally, i don't know why boot time is such a big deal since you only do it once, unless you turn it on/off frequently. load times are a bit more of an issue but that nush unless it takes 5 minutes to load a game
February 23, 2006 1:05:37 AM

well, i turn off my computer at night and when i go to school. I'd like my computer to turn on faster than the one i have right now. It takes at least 4min to bootup and load into windows etc etc. I just want something much faster.

loading times for anything really annoy me. I don't know why but they just do. Like photoshop, i hate how my current computer takes like 1min to get in.

I also don't want the hard drive to bottleneck such a nice system I'm planning to have by the end of the week.
February 27, 2006 7:25:29 PM

All I can tell you is that in single drive operation I definately notice a difference when I upgraded to a Raptor and I personally feel the extra price is worth it.

Anyway my vote if for you to go with the Raptors, at the very least you will be able to show people your HDTach scores and make them drool :) 
February 27, 2006 7:50:08 PM

I currently have Raptors, and previously had them in RAID 0. I no longer have the RAID array set up, and haven't noticed that much of a difference tbh.

The reasons I chose not to do RAID this time are:

1. Had problems installing winxp on them
2. Read some reviews where the loading times for certain games were not reduced by having RAID 0 (can't remember why or where those reviews were, unfortunately). The winxp load time is reduced, however.

However, I would strongly recommend the 'raptors'. They are not noisy (I have 4 and don't notice the noise at all), and the performance is great.

I've also heard some people suggest that the new 150GB Raptor X performs even better (some even say it should perform better than 2 x 74GB raptors in RAID 0, although I have no info to support that claim).
February 27, 2006 8:13:59 PM

Quote:
For what your doing, no.
Your going to see an improvement with RAID 0 with the 100Gig drives over a single drive already.

If you have the cash to burn and want your levels to load up even a few seconds faster, then yes.

How much faster? Pick one of your favorite games and go check on a forum for that game. I've seen the discussion about RAID 0 on almost every game forum there is.


1 raptor 150 will blow those 2 drives away easy, get 1 raptor 150 dont do raid 0 with 2 74 gig raptors.
February 27, 2006 8:21:35 PM

Quote:
I've also heard some people suggest that the new 150GB Raptor X performs even better (some even say it should perform better than 2 x 74GB raptors in RAID 0, although I have no info to support that claim).


Quote:
1 raptor 150 will blow those 2 drives away easy, get 1 raptor 150 dont do raid 0 with 2 74 gig raptors.


Now I have found one of the people who suggested that :lol: 
February 27, 2006 10:15:15 PM

Strange everything I read suggestst the exact oposite. 2 74's beat a single 150 to a bloody pulp.

Some Benchmarks

Accourding to HD Tac 2 74 GB Raptors blow away a single 150 GB Raptor.

2 74 GBs RAID 0 Access Time 7.8 Sustained Transfer 131.5
150 GB Raptor Access Time 8.1 Sustained Transfer 77.9
2 150's RAID 0 Access Time 8.3 Sustained Transfer 156.2

The benchmarks have spoken!

And from HD Tacs Library
2 Seagate 120's Raid 0 13.1 ms & 64.4 MB/s

Note the 74GB raptor has a better access time than the 150's.
February 27, 2006 10:36:02 PM

Quote:
Strange everything I read suggestst the exact oposite. 2 74's beat a single 150 to a bloody pulp.

Some Benchmarks

Accourding to HD Tac 2 74 GB Raptors blow away a single 150 GB Raptor.

2 74 GBs RAID 0 Access Time 7.8 Sustained Transfer 131.5
150 GB Raptor Access Time 8.1 Sustained Transfer 77.9
2 150's RAID 0 Access Time 8.3 Sustained Transfer 156.2

The benchmarks have spoken!

And from HD Tacs Library
2 Seagate 120's Raid 0 13.1 ms & 64.4 MB/s

Note the 74GB raptor has a better access time than the 150's.


I mean beats it like, if one fails then your jacked and can't recover your data(raid 0 blows, get 3hdds and raid5).
February 28, 2006 1:18:05 AM

maybe you can get a single raptor, or if thats not enough capacity, then get a shitty 250gig for storage, but don't get a single 150gig raptor, cause its almost the price of 2 74gig raptor, but seriously, that wd se 16 250gig will load very quickly, maybe a few seconds longer in games, check the hard drive chart for xp loading times, or maybe i will after i check my other threads.
February 28, 2006 1:52:14 AM

ok

i looked at the hd chart, and i'd still say go with the 250gig one i said, cause the price performance is almost exactly the same, and random access time is measured in milisecond, and of course the raptor won , but was only ahead by about 5ms, big whoop. The surface temp doesn't seem to be a big deal for the raptor, 46 for the 250, 51 for raptor, but where the 250gig obviously wins is in cost per gig.

the xp load you were concerned about shouldn't take 4 minutes, more like 1 minute with 250gig, 40 seconds with raptor, and according to mpjesse, 16 seconds with dual raptors, however, are those few seconds worth all that money you could put into something else like a video card?
February 28, 2006 1:57:58 AM

btw just looked at the interface performance comparison and the 250gig totally owned the rapor, so again get the 250gig.
February 28, 2006 2:40:42 AM

I agree with admiral25 I think you should go with three drives and go with raid 5. Personally I would go with 3 wd 320 sataII drives

western digital 320 gig cavier se16

____________________________________________________________
Athlon 3800 x2
Asus a8n-e
2gigs ocz platinum
xfx 7800gt 256mb
hiper-x 580
4x 250 wd sataII
February 28, 2006 8:04:37 PM

wait are we talking american dollars, cause even if we're not thats still expensive for three of those, and does, he really need 960gigs of space, almost a terabyte, i don't think so, save yourself some money and get a sinlge wd se 16 250gig 7200rmp 16mb cach hd.

by the way, is my sig picture showing, mine shows up as an x
February 28, 2006 8:19:44 PM

3 250 gig hdds in raid 5 gives you 500gigs, if one fails your data is safe. vs raid 0 one hdd crashes all your data is gone and thats it.
February 28, 2006 8:26:32 PM

right, i forgot he said RAID 5, but he also said 3 320gig, so thats 640gig, and the same price, about 400 usd,i think, we're talking in american, which is expensive, and i don't think drives fail as often as people say, especially wd and seagate, cause they are quality ones.
February 28, 2006 9:19:46 PM

I rather have protection and not need it, than not have protection and needed it.
February 28, 2006 9:33:35 PM

so why can't he get RAID 1 then if he wants that much security, instead of paying for another hd he doesn't need , cause the speed, isn't that much different.

the money saved by not getting RAID would better be spent on an amazing vid card then, 10 fewer seconds loading the computer.
February 28, 2006 9:42:18 PM

raid 1 gives no speed increase, but sure raid 1 is ok. Im just giving my thoughts, I love performace (Im A Gamer).
March 1, 2006 1:27:44 AM

i'm a gamer too, but what i'm saying is that RAid has so little effect on actual gameplay, its not worth the money, especially 300 extra bucks 8O
March 1, 2006 11:26:26 AM

to each his own, ya know.
March 1, 2006 11:43:14 AM

this is where my money would go, 2 150gig raptors in a mirror. Since your photoshopping, you won't see much difference on load up time, but with the extra space and the protection from failure, it would only be wise to do a mirror instead of a stripe. Now a raid 5 would be overboard for what your doing, its not a server, all though, overall, the preformance would be better, and you would have protection to boot. My money would still be on a mirror.
March 1, 2006 3:03:21 PM

The topic was 2 74 GB vs 2 100 GB.

Anyway you should be recommending the RE versions of those drives as the TLER feature really does make a difference.

Motherboard RAID 5 isn't safe as it seems, since you may not be able to find a compatible raid controller if the motherboard or controller dies. With RAID 1 however you can use any old IDE controller and still have access to all your data.

A decent RAID 5 controller is quite expensive, even a cheap one plus three drives exceeds the cost of 2 74GB Raptors.

---
If I wanted to go off topic I would suggest something similar to my setup.
A single 74 GB Raptor and two WD 400 GB RE2 Drives in RAID 1.

Maybe with WD 120 GB RE's to keep the costs down.

74 GB of fast storage for the OS, games and applications, 120-400 GB for protected storage for everthing that needs protecting.

Throw in True Image 8 backups whenever you install anything and maybe Dantz Retrospective for important files,
March 1, 2006 4:35:17 PM

i don't care what he does any more, cause i told you what he shouild do. If he is die hard set on getting either of those choices, then get the 2 100gig's and save yourself some money.
March 4, 2006 1:18:02 AM

Man it really depends on what HE wants to do, not just what you said corvetteguy. All RAIDs were made for servers period. Now that being said, if your into multimedia, which it sounds like he is, then a raid WILL help things overall, esp. on high resolution pictures and movies. What is the slowest thing overall on a computer? THE HARD DRIVES! if your dealing with a LARGE .jpg or .GIF then it will be worth your while for a raid one or 0. The raid 1 just becuase you don't want to loose everything you've worked on in photoshop. Are you in the IT Field? Do you have an A+ certification? For gaming, yes ONE drive would work, for someone who uses photoshop constantly, a mirror raid would be the best,a raid 1 will give you a preformance boost on load up and protect your information incase a hard drive has a PHYSICAL FAILURE.
March 4, 2006 1:29:36 AM

actually RAID 1 slows performance slightly, like someone said farther back, if he wants speed and security, 3 drives in RAID 5 is the way to go, but i just think RAID is a waste of money, that's all. If you can wait 2 more cseconds for a picture then pay 3 times the price. You asked for oopinions and i gave you mine.
March 4, 2006 1:36:46 AM

it also depends on how big the files are that your loading too. Photoshop actually has better load up times in raid0 and 1 than without. think about it, in a raid 0 your cutting the read and write times in half becuase your writing half the overall information to either drive. its the same way on upload too, but thats only on a hardware raid0. When you do a software raid 0, like most motherboards do, yes it will slow things down. the main thing is this, if you want to back up your software, run a raid1, if your looking for speed, and don't care about backing your things up, do a single 150 raptor. Either way your going to be spending about the same amount, but it just depends on what he wants.
March 4, 2006 1:50:32 AM

anotehr thing, do you know how expensive RAID controller cards are, on pci or pci-x. They go for 300-400cad for pci and up to a 1000 for pci-x. And it doesn't actually double the load time in RAID, the bandwidth is double but that doesn't translate to real life double speed. The 250gigs will be more than enough capacity.

BTW, i'm not trying to bully hi into buying what i think is best, just trying to help, sorry if i come across harsh, but i'm having a bad few days, and taking it out on you lol :twisted: :p  :wink:
March 4, 2006 1:56:36 AM

Well, I've already bought my whole comp. Just a couple days ago. I ended up buying two Seagate 80GB SATA2 and my WD 250GB SATA2.

I have the hard drives in raid 0 and its fast. REALLY fast compared to one sata drive. I personally am a computer freak and i noticed it.

Getting XP PRO, my a8n32-sli dlx and my raid 0 to all work in one happy family is still an ongoing task! It only boots up maybe 1/4 times :(  I have to keep resetting it until it finally works but when it does its all worth it.

You might be thinking i'm crazy for putting up with that but i only restart or shutdown my comp once a week maybe.

Thanks once again for all your help.
March 4, 2006 2:06:43 AM

i thought fast boot times was the reason you got RAID lol 8) :lol:  :roll:

if you have three drives, you should put it in RAID 5, for speed and security, unless the RAID controler card costs too much which they usually do. I hope you get it working better.
!