Raptor vs Seagate 7200.10
Is it really wise to buy a Raptor now? The reason why I am asking is because a Raptor 75 gig costs $160.00. Now, Seagate has a 350 Gig HD with Perpindicular tech. for $130.00. Ok, now I know that the Raptor still beats the Seagate 7200.10...but not by that much. And being the fact that the Seagate 7200.10 is on the Sata 3gig bus, and the raptor has to be shared on the other sata bus which is shared with all the other periphels... and given such a huge price difference with only somewhat performance differences....wouldn't the Seagate 7200.10 be a better deal?
Raptors are never worth it in my opinion, their price does not justify their small performance gain. I have not seen benchmarks for the new 7200.10, but I assume it will be at least as fast as current .9's, and my stance on the Raptor is valid for .9's, so likewise in the .10's.
Not sure what you mean by "shared sata" and "[independent] sata 3gig bus", as it all depends on the controller of whether or not each Hard Drive has it's own channel or is shared.
Quote:And being the fact that the Seagate 7200.10 is on the Sata 3gig bus, and the raptor has to be shared on the other sata bus which is shared with all the other periphels...
This in not quite right, if I understand what it is you are getting at. Each SATA device has it's own dedicated channel with dedicated bandwidth, so (at least to the SATA controller and devices) it doesn't matter how many devices you have in a system, they all will have that bandwidth. What happens when that controller links up with a bus of some sort before the proccessor is a decision made by the motherboard and chipset manufacturers. If it is dumped onto a PCI bus shared with other devices, then yes, that is a huge bottleneck, but to my knowledge this doesn't happen, and for that very reason.
Link explaining more than you could ever want to know about SATA.
With that said, the point (right now) is that there is little difference between 1.5 and 3.0 since current read speeds (off disk) still hovers around 60-80 MB/s. Some may cry "cache!", but quite honestly the chances of something not being resident in your system memory but being in the disk cache makes the point essentially moot.
Does this mean I support the raptors? Hardly. "But wait, you have them! You must support them!" This is true that I have them, but really, if you look at my specs you can see I didn't follow common sense with my build (but I'm asked to do some crazy things with my machine for research, so it kinda works out ) For most situations, for most people, raptors just don't make sense. I wholeheartedly would go for the Seagate if I were you.
1) SATA 150 vs SATA 3.0 = no difference performance or otherwise. SATA 150 is about 66% faster than it needs to be to keep up with the maxium transfer rate of the fastest hard drive.
2) You are confused about the "sharing issue". Each drive gets its own connection to the controller. (unless you are using some special hardware which no one seems to actually use or sell)
3) As far as the performance difference, you need to look beyond just the average sustained read.
In terms of access time & I/O per second the Raptor's lead is much more pronounced.
Anyway check the benchmarks out for yourself and then made up your mind.
Also remember generally smaller hard drives of the same generation (ie 7200.10) have less platters and therefore less read heads than thier larger brothers, so they are genrally slower.
So you don't want to compare the 750 GB vs the 74 GB Raptor and apply it to the 320 MB model.
Just to expand on what Codesmith said about using a 750GB to compare a 320 GB drive: The 750GB drive uses 4x188GB platters, where as the 320GB drive uses only 2 platters (which I'll assume are only 160GB a piece). So not only do you lose performance due to fewer heads, but you also lose out due to the fact that you are using a less dense disc.
Quite true. Still you should try to find actual numbers, which is a problem because professionals are usually focused on the top drives in either performance or capacity.
On the other hand less platers often a good thing because it usually means less noise. So it all depends on what metrics are important to the way you use your computer.
Quote:Just to expand on what Codesmith said about using a 750GB to compare a 320 GB drive: The 750GB drive uses 4x188GB platters, where as the 320GB drive uses only 2 platters (which I'll assume are only 160GB a piece). So not only do you lose performance due to fewer heads, but you also lose out due to the fact that you are using a less dense disc.
A denser platter means larger access times and slower performance as the drive gets filled with data. The amount of heads increases performance of course, but the access times and latencies on the near-200GB platters will not make up for it.
Nope - Higher Density means same access time, greater transfer rate.
Tranfer rate is the product of the number of heads present and the number of bits passing under each head per second. Data is stripped across platters to form cylinders allowing all the heads to read/write at the same time.
So transfer rate increase with increased platters, density and or RPMS.
Acesss time is the combination of the time necessary to move the heads to the right track and then the wait for the disc to spin arround to the write sector.
So its influenced by the mechanical movement of the heads and the rotational speed of the drive.
True there are more tracks on a denser drive, but they are closer together so its still exactly same physical distance needed to reach the correct track.
Now if they had to slow the drive down to 5400 RPM to handle the increase in density then you would have a slower access time, but the Seagate 750 GB still runs is 7200 RPMs.
PS if you just have one drive and you need the space do with a Seagate. The performance increase is nice, but by no means life changing.
I have the Raptor, and it is a nice. It is the fastest hard drive I ever had and I will buy it again. Anywho 160 for one drive and the other is 130. 30 difference is not that big of a deal if you ask me. I was on ebay the other day and they are selling hard drives that are 15,000 rpm they say that they destroy anything out there. But you be the judge.
Quote:I have the Raptor, and it is a nice. It is the fastest hard drive I ever had and I will buy it again. Anywho 160 for one drive and the other is 130. 30 difference is not that big of a deal if you ask me.
Comparing prices like that would be more meaningful if both drives had the same capacity. But the $130 Seagate is 350GB and the Raptor is 74GB. I have bought three 74GB Raptors for $120 to 130 each, so shop around if you go that way.
Quote:I was on ebay the other day and they are selling hard drives that are 15,000 rpm they say that they destroy anything out there. But you be the judge.
Do they emit ultrasonic electrical impulses that disable other drives in the vicinity? Is this legal? :?
Mine cancels each other out!
Careful, Hawkings says that's how black holes get started.
Anandtech posted these results
750 66.9 Mbps & 14ms access time (lower is better)
Raptor 150 were 75.4 / 8.6 ms
Raptor 74 65.1 / 8.0 ms
The only HDtach results I have seen for the 320 are 66.3 MBps, 13.ms
So for the 320 is faster than the 74 when moving large files.
However when its making lots of random accesses, which is more typical of most computer use the Raptors truely shine.
Anyway you should read the anantech article comparting the 750 and the 150 Raptor.
Agreed. However last I checked SR doesn't have any 7200.10 model's in its database.
Best avaliable info on the Seagaet 7200.10's I have read is the Anandtech article and that only covers the 750 GB.
What I am curious about is how the a 150 GB partion on the 750 would benchmark vs the 150 GB Raptor. I am betting it would have a higher average and minimum tranfer rate, but I am betting the Raptor would still win as far as I/O and real world performance.