Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

10,000 rpm hard drives question

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 24, 2006 9:27:26 AM

Ok this might be a stupid question.

but may i ask, when do U think 10,000 rpm drive will become mainstream? Currently over 95% of the hard drives out there are 7200rpm. So i was simpily wondering when will the 7200rpm drives be gone for desktops and shift to laptops while 5400rpm drives dissppear..

I'm guessing winter 2008. u?
June 24, 2006 9:53:08 AM

Quote:
Ok this might be a stupid question.

but may i ask, when do U think 10,000 rpm drive will become mainstream? Currently over 95% of the hard drives out there are 7200rpm. So i was simpily wondering when will the 7200rpm drives be gone for desktops and shift to laptops while 5400rpm drives dissppear..

I'm guessing winter 2008. u?
I don't know if we'll even see 10,000rpm drives become mainstream. 7200 rpm drives are closing the gap on the Raptors(slowly but surely), and it's probably cheaper to add extra cache than to increase platter speed. Plus perpendicular recording is going to become standard. The fact that nobody but WD is producing 10,000rpm drives, after the length of time that Raptors have been out (and have "reigned"), if anyone else was going to produce them ....they would have by now.
June 24, 2006 10:23:08 AM

Well, considering how expensive Raptors are I dont think theyll become mainstream anytime soon.
But I also think that the impressive performance is worth the price premium.
Related resources
June 24, 2006 11:33:04 AM

My 10K drives are loud as f***, I'd never want something that loud in my main rig.

5400rpm drives still exist because of the noise factor, even though they're so slow, and I think even though 10K drives are there, there's no way anyone will want that kind of noise in their new Dell.
June 24, 2006 12:30:57 PM

I'm thinking that there are going to be drive shrinks in the near future. Desktops are going to start using 2.5in harddrives and laptops are going to start using 1.8in harddrives. The think about smaller drives is that you can spin them faster and not have as much rotational mass. If my prediction is true we could be seeing 10k 2.5in drives in the not so distant future.
June 24, 2006 12:39:03 PM

I never had any noise problems with my 10k rpm 74gb raptor. An the performace is great.

But I don't either think they will become mainstrem though, since 7200rpm is good enough for most ppl, and we will soon get those hybrid drives and later on solidstate disks. The future is 0 rpm ;) 
June 24, 2006 2:26:00 PM

If there were actual competition from other hard drive manufacturers I believe that the 10k drives would become mainstream. There just isn't any incentive for the other manufacturers to compete though, seeing as they're trying to protect their SCSI product lines. The lack of competition is starving the 10k drives of growth.

And Raptors are NOT loud! If they're loud it's because of case construction/acoustics or mounting problems. Use all 4 mounting screws firmly tightened and if that doesn't help, put some felt washers inbetween the drive and the mounting cage. Center the felt around where the screws go into the drive. My drive happens to be whisper quiet, on par with any 7200rpm drive.
June 24, 2006 2:49:15 PM

Quote:
My 10K drives are loud as f***, I'd never want something that loud in my main rig.

5400rpm drives still exist because of the noise factor, even though they're so slow, and I think even though 10K drives are there, there's no way anyone will want that kind of noise in their new Dell.


_______________--

My Raptor 74Gig, is not loud, i can hardly hear it at all, certianly no louder then the dozen or so slower hardrives i've had over the years.
June 24, 2006 3:27:36 PM

So 10000rpm drive arent becoming mainstream anytime soon eh.. thanks for the replies.

may i ask how much is the 74GB raptor?
June 24, 2006 3:45:37 PM

An important thing not written by others... Raptor isn't a bare 10krpm drive, it is a totally different device. WD abandoned the server class SCSI segment some years ago: they simply replaced the SCSI interface with SATA and begun selling the 10k server HD as high performance SATA drives.
So the raptor isn't a simple 10k HDD it is a SCSI class unit with SATA interface.

Simply raising up the rotational speed to 10k doesn't help with 15ms average access times of current standard 3.5" HDD: they claim 8-12ms, but this is measured from a test pattern, while in real everyday use is 12-15ms.
So I think we will see high rotational speeds is the 2.5" Perpendicular Recording devices, but not in the 3.5" segment.
June 24, 2006 3:51:19 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1682...

Looks like $166USD at newegg.

I wish other manufacturers would move into the 10k SATA space, if only to get the prices down but they won't for awhile yet, if ever. Heh! I just realized that I think they've even hit on the perfect solution for staving off WD, albeit unintentionally. Just don't play and WD's marketshare won't grow. Any acknowledgement of the line with a competing drive will immediately start pricing cuts and performance increases.

However, as long as WD keeps updating the line the Raptors will always find a place among enthusiasts.
June 24, 2006 4:54:37 PM

There are rumours that Samsung will introduce 10k rpm drives next year.
June 25, 2006 8:49:14 AM

Quote:
My Raptor 74Gig, is not loud, i can hardly hear it at all, certianly no louder then the dozen or so slower hardrives i've had over the years.


I'm sure WD did some good work quietening those things up. Mine came out of a server + is quite old. Still fast, though!
June 28, 2006 8:44:24 PM

It may be a while if hybrid hard drives catch on. I know one of the main benefits is that large amounts of data will be stored in onboard RAM, allowing the drives to spin down to save power. Also since accessing data from RAM is faster than accessing data from the platters, it should provide a performance increase. If this is the case perhaps we will see a return of mainstream 5400 RPM drives due to lower power requirements, heat output, and noise levels all while maintaining or improving performance of 7,200 or possibly even 10,000 RPM drives.
June 28, 2006 10:56:11 PM

Quote:
It may be a while if hybrid hard drives catch on. I know one of the main benefits is that large amounts of data will be stored in onboard RAM, allowing the drives to spin down to save power. Also since accessing data from RAM is faster than accessing data from the platters, it should provide a performance increase. If this is the case perhaps we will see a return of mainstream 5400 RPM drives due to lower power requirements, heat output, and noise levels all while maintaining or improving performance of 7,200 or possibly even 10,000 RPM drives.
Wouldn't the mega-cache help with access times, but i can't see it helping with transfer rates ie: copying a 500MB file from one partition to another, or one drive to another, the 5,400 RPM platter speed would be at a disadvantage then?
June 29, 2006 12:44:07 AM

Sorry, this is totally off topic, but...

Don't you love the sound when an array of 8 or so 10,000 rpm drives boots up?

Zswingggggggg! :D 
June 29, 2006 1:14:17 AM

Probably won't see 10,000 rpm drives hit the mainstream for another two years.
June 29, 2006 1:16:12 AM

Quote:
Ok this might be a stupid question.

but may i ask, when do U think 10,000 rpm drive will become mainstream? Currently over 95% of the hard drives out there are 7200rpm. So i was simpily wondering when will the 7200rpm drives be gone for desktops and shift to laptops while 5400rpm drives dissppear..

I'm guessing winter 2008. u?

Whenever they're the same price and noise level as 7,200rpm drives.
June 29, 2006 1:31:25 AM

I agree, for information that is too large or isn't in the cache, faster drive speeds will help lower latencies for info that has to be pulled from the platters. Another thing to consider is that RAM should be able to saturate SATA's and SATA2's bandwidth, providing true 150MB or 300MB transfer rates when pulling info from RAM. Since the first batch of hybrid drives is said to have at least 250MB of RAM per drive (or so I remember reading) that should allow fast loading of smaller files such as OS files and some games. An ideal drive would be 10,000 RPM hybrid hard drive 8O . Though it is still too soon to tell, I personally think hybrid hard drives will change people's focus on RPM. After all some 7,200 RPM drives are coming close to the Raptors' speed.
June 29, 2006 5:07:32 AM

Quote:
An ideal drive would be 10,000 RPM hybrid hard drive 8O .
Wouldn't that be sweet? :D 

Quote:
After all some 7,200 RPM drives are coming close to the Raptors' speed.
I agree, and a lot of people seem to be in denial about this. :?
June 29, 2006 5:34:15 AM

Quote:
After all some 7,200 RPM drives are coming close to the Raptors' speed.
I agree, and a lot of people seem to be in denial about this. :?

All the non believers can check the HDD Charts for proof.
June 29, 2006 8:41:16 AM

Rather than a 10000rpm 'hybrid' hard disk, I reckon perhaps a 'Cool n Quiet' philosophy should be applied.

You could have a lil switch or pot on the front panel and control whether you want 5400 (for working in Word or whatever), 7200 (for a little more speed when you don't mind the noise) and the full 10k for gaming.

Or perhaps some kind of automated system relating to the CPU load? I dunno, would sort out the problem of having 10000rpm disks whining like a pig when you're only browsing the web.
June 29, 2006 10:45:36 AM

Quote:
Rather than a 10000rpm 'hybrid' hard disk, I reckon perhaps a 'Cool n Quiet' philosophy should be applied.

You could have a lil switch or pot on the front panel and control whether you want 5400 (for working in Word or whatever), 7200 (for a little more speed when you don't mind the noise) and the full 10k for gaming.

Or perhaps some kind of automated system relating to the CPU load? I dunno, would sort out the problem of having 10000rpm disks whining like a pig when you're only browsing the web.
Interesting idea, but i'd bet that it would add too much complexity, and therefore price into the manufacture of it, which (obviously) would get passed onto the consumer.
June 29, 2006 11:01:42 AM

I thought that too, however WD have proved with the Raptor that people are (rightly or wrongly) willing to part with serious money to have quick hard drives, and if it added $20-40 to the price for, let's just say a Raptor Deluxe (??? Raptor Plus? I duno, but you get the picture) people might just be willing to pay for it.
June 29, 2006 12:15:01 PM

Sorry for hijackin the thread here, but i have a quick question. Is it possible to run 10k RPM raptors in a Raid 0 array, and would it give a significant performance benefit over running a single 160gb drive?
June 29, 2006 1:34:39 PM

Quote:
Ok this might be a stupid question.

but may i ask, when do U think 10,000 rpm drive will become mainstream? Currently over 95% of the hard drives out there are 7200rpm. So i was simpily wondering when will the 7200rpm drives be gone for desktops and shift to laptops while 5400rpm drives dissppear..

I'm guessing winter 2008. u?

i think hybrid drives, or even solid state devices will become mainstream before 10,000 rpm drives
a spinning platter is a somewhat old technology, i dont think they will spend time and money trying to improve an old technology when new stuff is around.
June 29, 2006 2:17:39 PM

I nmy opinion a 74 gb raptor is little i perfer the 150 :D 
June 29, 2006 3:05:23 PM

Quote:
After all some 7,200 RPM drives are coming close to the Raptors' speed.
I agree, and a lot of people seem to be in denial about this. :?

All the non believers can check the HDD Charts for proof.

link's down care to fix it?
June 29, 2006 3:18:48 PM

The link is fixed.
June 29, 2006 3:26:11 PM

Quote:
After all some 7,200 RPM drives are coming close to the Raptors' speed.
I agree, and a lot of people seem to be in denial about this. :?[/quote]
I also agree. And the weird thing is that they're all raptor owners. Pride makes people blind sometimes
June 29, 2006 5:34:20 PM

Quote:
a spinning platter is a somewhat old technology, i dont think they will spend time and money trying to improve an old technology when new stuff is around.
I have to question the validity of this though. They are still making advancements, and designing new features for this aged technology. Take perpendicular recording for instance. I'm sure a lot of money has and is going into R & D for it, and i doubt Seagate would invest so heavily in it...and release it on their 750GB drive, if it's just a dead-end.
June 29, 2006 5:51:51 PM

Quote:
a spinning platter is a somewhat old technology, i dont think they will spend time and money trying to improve an old technology when new stuff is around.
I have to question the validity of this though. They are still making advancements, and designing new features for this aged technology. Take perpendicular recording for instance. I'm sure a lot of money has and is going into R & D for it, and i doubt Seagate would invest so heavily in it...and release it on their 750GB drive, if it's just a dead-end.
uhhhhhhhh yeah, they've spent money on that.
what i meant is that there's nowhere else to innovate in current hard drives configuration.
What have you seen in the last years? Faster spinning speeds, bigger buffers, an interface change, but the principle is the same. So, what will we have in the future? 10k rpm drives for home computers, 25k rpm for servers, with 64mb of cache?
They are investing money to improve this technology, but i think they are spending a lot more trying to find a replacement for a spinning disk
that was what i was trying to say.
June 30, 2006 2:09:03 AM

Quote:
After all some 7,200 RPM drives are coming close to the Raptors' speed.
I agree, and a lot of people seem to be in denial about this. :?
I also agree. And the weird thing is that they're all raptor owners. Pride makes people blind sometimes[/quote]

Not true, look at my sig, I'm a Raptor owner. When I bought them 3 years ago, nothing came close to touching them. They still are on top for the most part, but that lead is quickly narrowing down. Even today I'm still glad I have them and if I were to upgrade today, they would be in my new system. I'd just buy a nice 7,200 RPM 500GB hard drive to go along with them :p  .
June 30, 2006 11:14:09 AM

there are always exceptions :) 
June 30, 2006 12:22:44 PM

As much as it saddens me, but 10krpm will likely not become mainstream anytime soon, simply because 5400 rpm drives are cheaper, the average consumer doesn't know/can't tell/doesn't care about the diffference between a 5400rpm and a 7200 rpm. So they extrapolate there isn't much difference between a 7200 rpm and 10k rpm drive. Dodgy logic to be sure but for an insane number of people it works.

Unless there is a massive advertising campaign to implant the speed of the drive into the consciouness of Joe Blow, they are still going to consider bigger HD = better HD.

You can tell them its faster and use all sorts of logic and reasoning about it but at the end of the day they are going to see a 74 gb drive that is more expensive that a HD with twice the space.

The only way I've gotten people to understand just how much better 10k rpm drives are is to flat out show them.

I take them to the local electronic store and show them the label pointing out the speed of the drive (5.4k or 7.2k doesn't matter), then I give them a stop watch and deliberately set one of those machines to reboot and have them track the time it takes from the moment I hit the restart button to the moment the usuable desktop reappears after the boot.

Then I take them home to show them either my computer or one that I am building (usually a model with a slower CPU) and have them repeat the tests.

When they see that despite having a slower CPU my machine comes up way faster, then they get it. A lot of people they turn thier machines off or windows self destructs enough times that the wait time to do stuff is highly annoying. Once they experience the massive drop in wait time they convert.

Until then most of the consumers out there will see price and size as the key factors. For me the amount of time saved in rebooting and loading games faster over the course of the life of the hard drive is enough to make up for the price premium.
June 30, 2006 12:34:38 PM

what i usually take into consideration is the price/performance ratio. I understand that a 10k rpm is faster than a 7,200 one, but i dont think the advantage in performance justify its price. Also, for the average user, the difference a 10k rpm drive offers is not important. They will use their computers to browse the internet, wordprocessor or spreadsheet, things like that. For those tasks, 10k rpm is just not worth. Not even boot time, as you supposedly boot your computer just once. Even if it boots in half the time of a 7200 drive, i dont think it's worht. Well, that's my opinion.

by the way, the difference between a 5400 and a 7200 drive is bigger because besides the 1800 rpm difference, 7200 drives has 8 or even 16MB of cache, while 5400 had only 2.
For 7200 and 10000rpm the difference is not so big
June 30, 2006 1:51:43 PM

There are plenty of servers using 15K SCSI drives. Nobody really thinks SCSI is going to become mainstream, but the 15K drives are out there and they are reliable. One day, some mfr (Fujitsu?) could just work up an ATA or SATA interface for a drive already being made and put it on the market.

I don't think the computer mfrs (Dell, eg.) see the demand for 10K in terms of the percentage of people who upgrade to 10K when "building" compters on-line.

In their Dimension line, Dell offers 160 GB 10K drives for the XPS 700 series only and that at a substantial premium! For Optiplex buyers, the 10K drives are available at 80 GB capacity only and only for the GX520 and GX620 models.

If enough people paid the extra $100+ for the 10K drives, Dell would offer them more widely.

I'm not an expert at analyzing data flow, but it is likely that at 7,200 rpm with nice sized caches and data rates of 3 GB/s, the hard drive is not where the performance bottleneck exists. Probably the reason we see the 15K drives in servers is that a server running dual or quad Xeon processors may actually have its potential bottleneck at the hard drive -- it would certainly not be at the processor!

So, it could happen that demand for higher speed drives will develop; but I think it will be after other issues such as memory and processors and pipelining have advanced.
June 30, 2006 2:03:13 PM

Quote:
There are plenty of servers using 15K SCSI drives. Nobody really thinks SCSI is going to become mainstream, but the 15K drives are out there and they are reliable. One day, some mfr (Fujitsu?) could just work up an ATA or SATA interface for a drive already being made and put it on the market.

I don't think the computer mfrs (Dell, eg.) see the demand for 10K in terms of the percentage of people who upgrade to 10K when "building" compters on-line.

In their Dimension line, Dell offers 160 GB 10K drives for the XPS 700 series only and that at a substantial premium! For Optiplex buyers, the 10K drives are available at 80 GB capacity only and only for the GX520 and GX620 models.

If enough people paid the extra $100+ for the 10K drives, Dell would offer them more widely.

I'm not an expert at analyzing data flow, but it is likely that at 7,200 rpm with nice sized caches and data rates of 3 GB/s, the hard drive is not where the performance bottleneck exists. Probably the reason we see the 15K drives in servers is that a server running dual or quad Xeon processors may actually have its potential bottleneck at the hard drive -- it would certainly not be at the processor!

So, it could happen that demand for higher speed drives will develop; but I think it will be after other issues such as memory and processors and pipelining have advanced.

That's true. But some people can only see computers as the bleeding edge of technology, with gigs of memory, tons of fans, the best video card around and stuff. But they forget about the celeron or sempron consumers, or other low end parts. It's like a pyramid: at the bottom are the value segment, with slower drives, cheap cpus and stuff.
June 30, 2006 2:42:59 PM

I actually ran a few benchmarks on 10K vs. 15K SCSI disks on PCI and PCI-X raid controllers. I was surprised at the variances. I used speed disk, sandra file system benchmark and a few others that I don't recall at the moment.

Speed disk gave the following scores:
10K PCI: 2792, write time: 2984, write transfer 80.429, read time 672, read transfer rate 357.143

10K PCIX: 976 (WTF?) Write time 3609, write transfer rate: 66.5, read time 688, read transfer rate 348.837

15K PCI: 15400 write time 3078, write transfer rate 77.973, read time 672, read transfer rate 357.143

15K PCX: 4997 write time: 3234, write transfer rate 74.212, read time 672, read transfer rate 357.143


Based on the read transfer rates it looks like it's capped on the SCSI bandwidth.

SIS Sandra File System had the following results

10K PCI Drive Index 39, Buffered read 139, Sequential Read 44, random read 24, buffered write 75, sequential write 57, random write 42, average access time (estimated) 20

10K PCIX Drive Index 89, buffered read 479, sequential read 106, random read 76, buffered write 407, sequential write 83, random write 48, average access time (estimated) 4

15K PCI Drive Index 60, buffered read 82, sequential read 71, random read 58, buffered write 35, sequential write 38, random write 30, average access time (estimated) 3

15K PCIX Drive Index 112, buffered read 504, sequential read 122, random read 111, buffered write 381, sequential write 101, random write 68, average access time (estimated) 1.

Speed disk says:
#1-15K Disks on PCI Interface
#2-15K Disks on PCI-X interface
#3-10K Disks on PCI interface
#4-10K Disks on PCI-X interface

Disk bench shows the following for write time (in order of slowest)
-10K PCIX
-15K PCIX
-15K PCI
-10K PCI (fastest write)

In terms of write transfer rate, read time and read transfer rate, disk bench shows them all to be about equal.
June 30, 2006 3:29:14 PM

That may be true, until the average user after 1 hour has AIM, Yahoo Messenger, and untold how many spywares running in the background that it takes 5 minutes to boot, and they don't really notice. The bottom line, most people don't get it, or care.

I am constantly amazed at what people have in the start routines when I sit down to work on a machine. Often the first thing I do is remove all the crap they have in the startup so when I have to reboot the machine I don't have to wait 5 minutes. I ask them why they have all the stuff startup on boot and they just look at me like I've got 3 heads. "because I like to have it all ready for me to use when it boots" Yeah, it's really hard to double click on the icon to open a program, I agree. :roll:
June 30, 2006 4:18:35 PM

Quote:
I nmy opinion a 74 gb raptor is little i perfer the 150 :D 


Teh 150 is awesome =D Got mine a month ago, not going back. Also have 800GB storage across 3 other drives =D

My 150GB Raptor makes very little noise apart from (a) 5seconds during the 10 second boot up (b) when I'm playing superior quality games but I cant hear it because the headphones / music is on and (c) anything which accesses the HDD a lot (3d rendering etc).

I would suggest the Raptor to anyone. If you can fork out the money, get the 150gb.

On another note - if you want a purely solid state HDD with 0rpm, get an iRAM. 100 quid for the card, another 200 for 4gb RAM needed. 300 GBP for 4gigs of space with a seek time of 0.05ms (Raptor 150gb has ~8ms). Ideal for an OS and a swapfile. *cant wait for christmas lol*
June 30, 2006 5:30:41 PM

I-RAM is an interesting concept but for most people the though of loosing data due to power loss is too big of a risk.
June 30, 2006 5:34:05 PM

Quote:
I-RAM is an interesting concept but for most people the though of loosing data due to power loss is too big of a risk.


That's why it has the 17hr backup battery. Ideally you'd use it only when you need to start something like 3D rendering, and then you'd take a copy then stick it on the iRAM. Or make an image of what you want on there, and re-image in case of a power outage for 24hrs.
June 30, 2006 5:41:14 PM

Quote:
the difference between a 5400 and a 7200 drive is bigger because besides the 1800 rpm difference, 7200 drives has 8 or even 16MB of cache, while 5400 had only 2. For 7200 and 10000rpm the difference is not so big
Lots of 7,200 RPM drives have/had 2MB cache. I have 2 WD 60GB drives. One with 8MB cache, and one with 2MB cache(both 7,200 RPM). There is barely any difference between the two, especially in real world(not benchmarks).
June 30, 2006 5:50:21 PM

I realize that it has some fail-safes to it but it still poses more threats for data loss compared to traditional hard drives and other non-volatile RAM devices. I can see using it as a temporary area to work in but long storage seems like there would be issues. Believe me, if I felt that they were safe for long term storage i would have several I-RAMs in RAID 0 with my OS and games. Wouldn't that be sweet? :) 
June 30, 2006 6:08:27 PM

Quote:
the difference between a 5400 and a 7200 drive is bigger because besides the 1800 rpm difference, 7200 drives has 8 or even 16MB of cache, while 5400 had only 2. For 7200 and 10000rpm the difference is not so big
Lots of 7,200 RPM drives have/had 2MB cache. I have 2 WD 60GB drives. One with 8MB cache, and one with 2MB cache(both 7,200 RPM). There is barely any difference between the two, especially in real world(not benchmarks).
i know... i even have one 7200rpm 2mb of cache. i was trying to point that there were some other improvements jumping from 5400 to 7200 rpm other than spindle speed.
June 30, 2006 7:09:22 PM

Quote:
Wouldn't that be sweet? :) 


Yes, yes it would :!:
!