Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question about WD Raptors

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Western Digital
  • Wd Raptor
  • NAS / RAID
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 13, 2006 12:28:06 PM

Which is more powerfull, efficient and a lot better between them?

Two 74GB WD Raptor 10,000 RPM at RAID 0

or

One 150GB WD Raptor 10,000 RPM


actually I like the 150GB version coz it's cool to look at, but what I'm after to is performance.

More about : question raptors

April 13, 2006 12:32:24 PM

I recommend you re-post this in the "General Storage" section of the forums. We only know of Conroe and AM2 here.
April 13, 2006 12:51:04 PM

the 150GB(i think it is 148GB) one, becouse it has 16MB cache, while the 74 has only 8MB.
There is another thing that makes no difference at all, it is the interface. The 150GB is SATA2 and the 74GB is SATA.
Anyway price/(storage+performance) factor should lead you when you decide to buy two or more(buying 1 raptor is pointless) and put them in RAID 0 to boost your PC.
Related resources
April 13, 2006 12:59:27 PM

I doubt very seriously that the 150 GB Raptor has a SATA-II interface... have a look!

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Product...

It's still one hell of a drive and I'd love to trade in my 74 GB Raptor for one, but it's not SATA-II... when it was announced it was rumored to have that interface, but in reality it doesn't.
April 13, 2006 1:04:23 PM

true it is not SATA2 :? , I heard the same that they will be SATA2, but I have not purchased one yet. Anyway SATA or SATA2, makes no difference.
April 13, 2006 1:14:12 PM

Toms Hardware did some benchmarking on the raptor drives and IIRC the 150 was considerably faster than the 74. The 74 GB Raptor didn't seem to be a whole lot faster than regular 7200rpm drives. Also SATA2 is mostly meaningless unless you're running crazy raid arrays. The max throughput of a 10k rpm raptor is ~70-80Gb/s. SATA 1 is capped at 150Gb/s so you're barely using half of the available bandwidth. The only time the extra bandwidth of SATA2 is going to help you is while accessing the cache which is not really a big deal (depending on the size of the e-penis you're looking to cultivate).
April 13, 2006 1:20:21 PM

Anyone willing to pay $300+ for a 150 GB drive is clearly looking for the maximum e-penis enhancement possible... so yes, that interface WOULD help.
April 13, 2006 1:29:02 PM

The only ones that cost that much are the ones with the clear cover (which makes so much sense seeing as it is INSIDE a drive bay). I actually just bought one (sans window) for my new system for $275 which is still a ripoff, but the THG benchmarks were pretty convincing. It proved faster than 2 7200rpm drives in Raid 0. And I have plenty of older IDE drives kicking around to store pr0n....I mean....errrr.....files, so I just want a fast drive for games (and the biggest e-penis around).
April 13, 2006 1:38:54 PM

No, even if someone uses crazy RAID arrays, SATA2 wont give anything to performance. Each drive is independently connected, so nothing to share with others. Thats why WD made their 150GB RAPTORS with SATA interface, and SATA is much more reliable and proven to work with all chipsets.
There is logic to buy RAPTORS only if you plan to make crazy RAID, else if you can get the same perofrmance and more storage with less expencive drives, ex. Two 250GB 16MB 7200RPM drives in RAID 0 wil perform at better than 1 RAPTOR 150GB and they have 3.33 times of RAPTORs storage
April 13, 2006 1:43:40 PM

Yeah, on the hard drive side of things, Sata/SataII doesn't matter until hard drives can catch up to the 150 a second number, which they are not close at all once the cache has to wait on the drive. However, having a SataII motherboard can be nice if you need large raid arrays, because port replication can allow less cables to be connected to more hard drives, see backplane. (Yeah SAS is even better for this, but both are nice) See rancho.com
April 13, 2006 1:57:42 PM

Personaly i want 4 of those Gigabyte (i think thats who makes it) I-ram drives stripped into a 32GB RAid 0 image........ hmmmm orgasmic lol.

Raptor = Pure Speed

Raptor = Lots of cash for very little performance unless in raid

therefore if you have lots of cash and want pure speed then get raptor. If you want value then raptor is definately not your best decision
April 13, 2006 2:18:51 PM

I'd hedge my bets and say that two of the 74Gb drives in a RAID 0 config would, in a few situations. be faster than a single 150Gb Raptor. Mainly this would apply during game level loading times, and possibly at boot, but would only shave off a couple seconds at best, as it still takes time for the system to detect the RAID array in the first place at bootup.

However, with my own pair of 36Gb Raptors, they have been running flawlessly for 2+ years now in a RAID stripe. I'm normally the first to load into Multiplayer games, often beating others by 10-20 seconds. The newer Raptors should be even faster, so don't hesitate to buy a pair if you can afford it.
April 13, 2006 2:20:53 PM

I myself recently purchased a 150 GB Raptor (will be on my doorstep tomorrow). I'm replacing my RAID 0 with this ONE hard drive, for many factors.

1) It's a PAIN IN THE A$$ to have a RAID 0 and install XP. (Some may disagree, but I've had nothing but trouble).

2) I didn't like the thought of having TWO drives b/c if one fails, I loose the data from both (applies to RAID 0).

3) Looking at the new Hard Drive interactive compairison charts available on Toms Hardware Guide, I could see that the RAPTOR alone was going to do better than my current RAID setup.

Get that Raptor, if you can afford the $275. Oh, but do NOT buy the one w/ the fancy cover. They perform the exact same. BTW, the others are right: the price/performance ratio leaves something to be desired, b/c this sucker is EXPENSIVE. Just the same, your HD is the system bottleneck everytime data not stored in memory is read, so it's important to have something that performs. If you don't factor in cost, this drive ROCKS.
April 13, 2006 2:54:36 PM

2 Raptor 74 GB drives in RAID 0 will DEFINATELY be faster than a single raptor x (150).

Raptor Versus RAID

Of course, if you get the raptor x, you can always upgrate later to 2 of them, and 2 raptor X's are faster than 2 raptor 74 GB's.

If you go RAID 1 though, I'd definately recommend at least an external drive for backup.

50 extra bones for a window on my hard drive? I think not...
April 13, 2006 3:27:51 PM

I faced a similar question when I built my rig last week.

2 75 in Raid? 1 150? 2 150 in Raid?

I found this link that did benchmark testing on the 75's and 150 raptors in single and raid array.

Raptor benchmarking

I decided to go with just one raptor 150 verse two in raid.
April 13, 2006 4:33:32 PM

Quote:
the 150GB(i think it is 148GB) one, becouse it has 16MB cache, while the 74 has only 8MB.
There is another thing that makes no difference at all, it is the interface. The 150GB is SATA2 and the 74GB is SATA.
Anyway price/(storage+performance) factor should lead you when you decide to buy two or more(buying 1 raptor is pointless) and put them in RAID 0 to boost your PC.


When something is OT (off topic), you should not answer when it has been advised to post in the right section.

This is causing forum mess. Why do you think there is many sub section? To look cool?

Posting everything everywhere won't help those who have real questions about real problem but their questions get lost in all that bullshit. But.. I guess that it is what to be expected, with all the low brained noobs that keeps posting here..

Did I mention Conroe?
April 13, 2006 5:41:59 PM

Structure and order is hard to achieve with dolts...
April 13, 2006 7:07:27 PM

Doesn't matter, really. He'll know for next time.

He got his question answered, which is really the point of the forums.
April 13, 2006 7:08:33 PM

Quote:
Doesn't matter, really. He'll know for next time.

He got his question answered, which is really the point of the forums.


he would have it answered in the general storage or HDD forum as well..
April 13, 2006 7:12:56 PM

Quote:
And I have plenty of older IDE drives kicking around to store pr0n....I mean....errrr.....files, so I just want a fast drive for games (and the biggest e-penis around).


I have the 150G raptor for OS and games, and a 250G (16M cache) WD for my "files".
April 13, 2006 7:17:11 PM

Quote:
he would have it answered in the general storage or HDD forum as well..


Everyone makes mistakes. You don't need to crusify him, or in the case of others, resort to namecalling.

It's really not that big of a deal if a couple of posts don't fall under the correct sub-topic.
April 13, 2006 7:47:03 PM

Quote:
e only know of Conroe and AM2 here.


lol

i would go with 1 big HDD, but i dunno maybe just me
April 13, 2006 9:10:05 PM

Dear Lord Raptor is a CPU!
April 13, 2006 10:14:27 PM

Quote:
he would have it answered in the general storage or HDD forum as well..


Everyone makes mistakes. You don't need to crusify him, or in the case of others, resort to namecalling.

It's really not that big of a deal if a couple of posts don't fall under the correct sub-topic.

The problem is not the one who first post it, nor the one that have him to post into the corect section..

Problem is those who keep answering here.

So, if he posted his question in the correct, then there is 2 threads that keep going on the same subject.

If, no one would have answered after the "please post in the right forum" post, then everything would have been OK. He makes a mistake, got corrected, and things go on..

But no..... just keep that mess going .. and going..
April 13, 2006 10:21:31 PM

I am not sure but I would opt for the 150(or 148) cuz of case space and heat but thats just me...
April 14, 2006 6:32:06 AM

You would be better off with the 150gb version. The real world performance difference between raid 0 and a single fast drive is not as significant as you would think. The 150 is extremely fast and more reliable than raid 0.
April 14, 2006 7:11:28 AM

Wow.. so now there are raptor CPU's out there with a 150 Gigs cache, and spins at 15krpms?

Who would need HDs anymore? :oops:  . o O (I'm going to bed now)
April 14, 2006 5:48:04 PM

Quote:
You would be better off with the 150gb version. The real world performance difference between raid 0 and a single fast drive is not as significant as you would think. The 150 is extremely fast and more reliable than raid 0.


I personally see a huge real-world difference between a single drive and RAID 0, but that's just me :)  <Disclaimer>Individual Results may Vary</Disclaimer>

Quote:
If, no one would have answered after the "please post in the right forum" post, then everything would have been OK. He makes a mistake, got corrected, and things go on..


Or perhaps the whole thing could be avoided with a "Please post this in the correct category next time," instead of "Only morons post in the wrong forum. Post somewhere else." By your own suggestion, you create the problem by creating 2 threads in the first place.

Either way, you're just a victim of your own devices. You're bumping this thread and helping to keep it alive. The OP wanted an answer to his question, and he got it. Why would he post again in the Hard Drive forum?
April 14, 2006 8:32:20 PM

No there are not 15k ones... 10k only for Raptors...

Wusy has 15k SCSI drives...
April 14, 2006 9:18:36 PM

Quote:
No there are not 15k ones... 10k only for Raptors...

Wusy has 15k SCSI drives...


:cry: 

8O . o O ( what if I upped the voltage/amps? Then would I get 15k?)
April 14, 2006 10:09:49 PM

Sure... [/laughing thinking of burning electronics]
April 14, 2006 11:39:52 PM

WD Scavengers in RAID 0. leave this topic alone.


,,
April 15, 2006 2:33:49 AM

My budget for a new HD is $300, so I'd better get two 74GB raptors and never mind those transparent case :D  , others said that It might melt :lol:  Joke, but it's firmwire is better than the recent ones right but the problem is, it's too expensive, so two 74GB raptors is enough and set it to RAID 0+1 set right?
April 15, 2006 4:30:27 AM

No... sorry. You need 4 drives to do RAID 0+1 or 1+0. I always forget which one is which. Read the Sticky on RAID in the Hard Drive section for more. its at version 1.3 I think. Anyhow, if you get the 2 Raptors and RAID them just be sure to back up all of your important stuff. Have a large slower drive (or a couple of smaller but still slow drives) to back stuff up onto. I'll be delving into the world of RAID very soon too (tomorrow I hope when my new HDs come in) so don't worry about it too much.

-mcg
April 15, 2006 11:14:28 PM

I have two 36 Raptors in one RAID0 and two 74 Raptors in another RAID0. I also have a WD 300 GB "backup" HDD so incase if the RAID sets fail. They haven't yet, but I'm prepared! Windows XP is installed on the pair of 36's and DV is stored on the 74's. As far as installing Windows on the RAID array, I have had no problems. The first time I used a f6 disk, but now I made an unattended DVD with the drivers loaded from the start.

I can definatley tell the difference between regular SATA HDD -> 1 Raptor, and 1 Raptor -> 2 in RAID0. I have them on a Intel ICH6R and Sillicon Image controllers and was running about ~50 MB/s regular SATA, ~85 MB/s single Raptor, and now ~135 MB/s with the RAID set. Hehe, Windows loads really quick, the bar floats by only 1.5 times when loading! Noticable boost in performance in Pinnacle Studio. Make sure to pick the right stripe size though, depending on what data is stored. (ie, IIRC Windows+Programs are striped at 16 KB, and I have the DV at 128 KB)

So for me, I kinda made a manual RAID 0/1 with the Raptors in RAID0 and a custom batch backup to the 300GB.

PS. If you do decide to run Raptors, be sure to add a fan or two on them. They run a little hotter. I added a 80mm fan blowing directly across them and its been fine. Good Luck!
April 16, 2006 4:19:37 AM

1. Isn't 2x74 GB more expensive than 150GB?
2. 74GB has TCQ, 150GB has NCQ
3. Large files and streaming = RAID0, small files fast access = Raptor, both = 2x Raptor
April 16, 2006 5:22:32 AM

Quote:
Toms Hardware did some benchmarking on the raptor drives and IIRC the 150 was considerably faster than the 74. The 74 GB Raptor didn't seem to be a whole lot faster than regular 7200rpm drives.


You must have read a different Tom's review than the one I did (the one still on the site):

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/06/wd1500ad_raptor_...

In general, the 150GB Raptor was the fastest single drive in the review and the 74 was next in line. Yes, there are specific tests where a few of the 7200 rpm drives fared well, but when you assimilate all of the test data, the 74 was the second in line. It gets down to your priorities, though. If speed, capacity, cost effectiveness and reliability are all important to you, then you'll probably end up with one or more RAID arrays made up from 7200 RPM drives. Or, like most people, speed won't matter THAT much and you'll just have two or three 7200 drives and call it good. Eventually, 10K RPM SATA HDs may become more commonplace, along with RAID arrays that push the SATA2 bandwidth. But I don't see it factoring into the average home or gaming PC till the cost drops quite a bit.
April 16, 2006 5:29:09 AM

Quote:
So for me, I kinda made a manual RAID 0/1 with the Raptors in RAID0 and a custom batch backup to the 300GB.


This is a great general plan and you don't need to use expensive drives to do it. Get a couple of 7200 RPM drives for the RAID 0 if you need speed and if that's too slow, add another one or two. If you really want security, put a couple of drives in RAID 1 as your backup. Fortunately, 7200 RPM HDs are cheap. 90 bucks for a 250? Cool! TBsRUs.
April 16, 2006 5:35:20 AM

Quote:
1. Isn't 2x74 GB more expensive than 150GB?


I've seen the 150 Raptor as low as ~$285. I bought one 74 for $115 in January and could have had four at that price. I got another recently from Newegg for $130 (160-30 MIR). I've seen 74s pushing two bills at some stores but hopefully you don't buy at those places.
!