Question about WD Raptors

[Hale73]

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.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I recommend you re-post this in the "General Storage" section of the forums. We only know of Conroe and AM2 here.

 

[gOJDO]

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.

 

[rodney_ws]

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

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=101257-1

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.

 

[gOJDO]

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.

 

[Banusflakes]

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).

 

[rodney_ws]

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.

 

[Banusflakes]

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).

 

[gOJDO]

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

 

[shabodah]

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

 

[SuperFly03]

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

 

[bweir]

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.

 

[random_foxx]

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.

 

[Whizzard9992]

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...

 

[smedlin]

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.

 

[pat]

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?

 

[RichPLS]

Structure and order is hard to achieve with dolts...

 

[Whizzard9992]

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

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

 

[pat]

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..

 

[smedlin]

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".

 

[Whizzard9992]

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.

 

[pengwin]

e only know of Conroe and AM2 here.

lol

i would go with 1 big HDD, but i dunno maybe just me

 

[old_times]

Dear Lord Raptor is a CPU!

 

[pat]

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..

 

[sandmannight]

I am not sure but I would opt for the 150(or 148) cuz of case space and heat but thats just me...