Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

(1)150 10,000RPM WD Raptor VS (2)Seagate 7200.10 320s RAID 0

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 13, 2007 4:44:16 PM

i am building a machine for a buddy and was wondering what the difference would be in terms of performance

(1)150 10,000RPM WD Raptor VS (2)Seagate 7200.10 320s RAID 0

not sure which route to take.

thanks in advance........
April 18, 2007 5:04:14 PM

This article may answer some of your questions --> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/12/cheap_raid_ravag...

Windows Vista Premium
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (no OC)
BFG GeForce 8800 GTX OC
Corsair XMS2 TWIN2X2048-6400 2X1GB DDR2-800
Western Digital 150GB Raptor x2
Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro Series
Dell E207WFP & Samsung SyncMaster 213T
Asus Striker Extreme Motherboard
PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR
Silverstone Temjin TJ07 with window
Pioneer DVR-212D DVD/CD Writer
APC Back-UPS XS 1000
Various trick lighting & mods
April 19, 2007 6:18:55 PM

It would probably answer his question if Patrick Schmid wasn't a complete retard and actually used seagate drives w/PR to stack up against the raptors.
Related resources
April 19, 2007 9:11:31 PM

Well, you can listen to the 99% majority on these forums who are pretty poorly informed, or choose to believe their intangible impressions fed by the anticipation of great performance and high synthetic benchmark scores.

Or you can read some pretty decent analysis (take notice pschmid) and come to your own conclusions on that basis:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2969
April 19, 2007 9:23:54 PM

Uh oh. I'm new here. I guess I'll take Schmid's reviews with a grain of salt.
April 19, 2007 9:38:38 PM

Well, I'm not suggesting either way, but my personal results have been better performance with raid 0 vs. a Raptor 150, BUT keep in mind that I use Western Digital Drives for the raid 0 setup, NOT Seagate Drives.

Take another grain...
April 19, 2007 10:09:39 PM

forget raid 0

the raptor wins every time it's 10k spindle speed means access is very low, raid 0 only stands a chance with prolonged access of big files.

although the 7.2k drives are very, very fast these days - it's your choice is the the raptor worth the money?

my advice, buy a raptor as the boot, and a second big 7.2k as your storage disc.
April 19, 2007 10:15:09 PM

You're right, but I don't care for access times when I mostly play Battlefield 2. RAID 0 really helps out on load times!
April 19, 2007 10:20:16 PM

Quote:
i am building a machine for a buddy and was wondering what the difference would be in terms of performance

(1)150 10,000RPM WD Raptor VS (2)Seagate 7200.10 320s RAID 0

not sure which route to take.

thanks in advance........


Forget about Raptor HDD, unless you don't care about money. Too expensive for too few performances points to be gained. Go with the 320GB-7200.10 RAID array. You'll get the same performances (better), with more capacity and most probably some spare changes left for other parts. At least, that what I think is true for most PC setup. For some specific task, the Raptor drive might rule... altough that will be only few and far between.

EDIT: Or simply forget about RAID. I have 2 Seagate 320GB-7200.10 HDD and they're not in RAID. Too much risk of data lost for me, and too much hassle when installing Windows, especially on dual-boot. It might take my STEAM games 2-5 more seconds to load, true. Also, during video encoding, CPU utilisation goes around 80-90% sometime because it's waiting for the HDD I guess (a old Maxtor 160GB in this case tough, but not when on my SEAGATE HDD), true also. In general tough, I don't see any slowdown because I'm waiting for my HDD.

That's only me tough, and it all depends on what your friends wants.
April 19, 2007 10:30:21 PM

Quote:
You're right, but I don't care for access times when I mostly play Battlefield 2. RAID 0 really helps out on load times!


See, that's what I don't get about you people (grouping you with the remainder of the majority that routinely says things like RAID 0 halves - and I know I am exaggerating here - load times). If you look at the Anadtech's article (and for a while I stopped quoting the older article that compared Raptor RAID0 to a single drive because most of their real world application benchmarks were made with older apps), it specifically shows the Battlefield 2 load time bench for RAIDed and non-RAIDed drives. Here's the kicker - RAIDed Raptors give you a 1 (one) second advantage on one minute load time over a single drive, and 2 (two) seconds over the new Hitachi (which, by the way, OP, I would consider long and hard). Now, 2 seconds on 64 seconds is 3%. At double the cost and the risk, that does not make it enough of a payoff. And by the way, this is not even apples to apples, this is apples to much better apples, 'cause that is comparing two 10,000 RPM Raptors in RAID0 to a single 7,200 RPM drive.

The point is, I just don't see how you can say "it helps with load times" because every measured benchmark I have seen suggests otherwise.
April 19, 2007 10:37:55 PM

there are very few consumer hdds that can outperform a [current] raptor, and its only a few select instances where that is the case... the 1TB hitachi for example ($400+), is only just now being competetive with current raptors ($100-200), and its still being outperformed (now, not drastic performance diffferences though either, TBH)

raptors are certainly not competetive where cost/capacity ratio is a concerned (~$1-2/GB)

not even going into raid though, thats been beat to death countless times... *headache*
April 19, 2007 10:44:01 PM

Quote:
not even going into raid though, thats been beat to death countless times... *headache*


Ya know, I thought the same thing, but the new Anand article came up and the OP was so apparently misguided...The only thing I'd like more is that the benchies there were done with a faster proc to remove any doubt that it is not structural issue (access pattern) and it is bottlenecked on the processor side...
April 19, 2007 10:49:56 PM

Quote:
You're right, but I don't care for access times when I mostly play Battlefield 2. RAID 0 really helps out on load times!


See, that's what I don't get about you people (grouping you with the remainder of the majority that routinely says things like RAID 0 halves - and I know I am exaggerating here - load times). If you look at the Anadtech's article (and for a while I stopped quoting the older article that compared Raptor RAID0 to a single drive because most of their real world application benchmarks were made with older apps), it specifically shows the Battlefield 2 load time bench for RAIDed and non-RAIDed drives. Here's the kicker - RAIDed Raptors give you a 1 (one) second advantage on one minute load time over a single drive, and 2 (two) seconds over the new Hitachi (which, by the way, OP, I would consider long and hard). Now, 2 seconds on 64 seconds is 3%. At double the cost and the risk, that does not make it enough of a payoff. And by the way, this is not even apples to apples, this is apples to much better apples, 'cause that is comparing two 10,000 RPM Raptors in RAID0 to a single 7,200 RPM drive.

The point is, I just don't see how you can say "it helps with load times" because every measured benchmark I have seen suggests otherwise.

I base my FACTS on personal experience. Adding a second drive and configuring the 2 for RAID 0 cut 14 to 30 seconds off my load times on BF2. I don't give a shit what Andtech says, because I've benched and tested myself and I know that my load times are better with RAID 0.

What do you base your "facts" on?
April 20, 2007 12:03:29 AM

Quote:

I base my FACTS on personal experience. Adding a second drive and configuring the 2 for RAID 0 cut 14 to 30 seconds off my load times on BF2. I don't give a **** what Andtech says, because I've benched and tested myself and I know that my load times are better with RAID 0.

What do you base your "facts" on?


I was a big proponent of raid0 until quite recently, when I got into a "spirited debate" over the issue with another forum member. I was sure and confident in my argument, but he beat me about the head and shoulders with facts until I conceded the point.

Every review that I have read shows a negligible performance increase using raid0, sometimes you even lose performance. I was unable to find any convincing evidence of a significant performance boost using raid0 whatsoever.

If you can find a review from a credible site showing a 14 to 30 second drop in load time, then I will be overjoyed. You will forgive me if I do not trust "ALANMAN's forum reviews" as much as I trust Anandtech.

I still have 2 320 gig seagate 7200.10 drives in a raid0, but it's simply because it's too much of a hassle to reinstall all of my games that are currently on the array.

Next on my buy list is one of those superb hitachi 1 TB drives. I wouldn't recommend a raptor to anyone, because they are WAY too expensive for the amount of disk space you get.
April 20, 2007 12:12:20 AM

I'm not saying anyone should trust me over Andtech, I'm saying those are my results and I'm sticking to it.

People can believe what they will, but don't say that I am wrong in MY results and that raid is not faster for ME
April 20, 2007 12:22:19 AM

Quote:
I'm not saying anyone should trust me over Andtech, I'm saying those are my results and I'm sticking to it.

People can believe what they will, but don't say that I am wrong in MY results and that raid is not faster for ME


I'll just file this away under unconvincing evidence.

Anand actually referred to this as the placebo effect.

Either that or you are the lucky one that got the magic 2 hard drives that show the kind of performance increase that is unattainable in lab testing?

What kind of raid controller are you using by the way?
April 20, 2007 12:25:59 AM

for yourself raid 0 can be perfectly fine. its only the issue of results being able to be accurately repeated when a recommendation is made to someone else, where their money becomes involved... ...if you tell someone else that raid 0 cuts down load times by half, or comes even close to that, and are making a recommendation to them, there should be at least a few reputable/repeatable 3rd party benchmarks or articles available to help verify what youre saying, thats all
April 20, 2007 12:35:35 AM

and thats why i said i don't suggest either option.

PETEvsDRM: the onboard raid controller built into my motherboard.
April 20, 2007 4:22:50 AM

Quote:
I base my FACTS on personal experience. Adding a second drive and configuring the 2 for RAID 0 cut 14 to 30 seconds off my load times on BF2. I don't give a **** what Andtech says, because I've benched and tested myself and I know that my load times are better with RAID 0.

What do you base your "facts" on?


I think I quoted my sources, didn't I? I could quote more, too. And, by the way, I did run a RAID 0 myself for a while, and I thought it "felt" faster, too, until I went to a single faster drive which "felt" faster yet. I am not retentive enough to measure I'll be honest. But based on that, and particularly based on the reviews that show time after time that RAID0 has no advantage to average users, I believe that to be the case.

One other thing, too, all of the reviews from credible sources present their set-up and methodology. What was yours? Was the hard drive the only thing that changed? Did you use a clean system install? All those factors make a difference, and the key is consistency.

And if there is one consistent thing in all of this, it's that every real world benchmark ever performed by credible reviewers points to the same conclusion: RAID0 does not help. So if you want to start a pissing contest with some site like Anandtech be prepared to answer the questions above.

So I will ask you again, what was you set up in both cases, and what was the methodology?
April 20, 2007 4:44:23 AM

Quote:
i am building a machine for a buddy and was wondering what the difference would be in terms of performance

(1)150 10,000RPM WD Raptor VS (2)Seagate 7200.10 320s RAID 0

not sure which route to take.

thanks in advance........


to answer the OPs question though... it might be better asked, 'which single hdd offers better performance between these 2?'... ...the 150GB raptor would then obviously be the hdd to chose, on a strictly performance basis

although you didnt ask, theres also the 74GB and 36GB ADFD versions if cost is an issue, ironically (as they also offer the same performance as the 150GB ADFD). if youre concerned about storage capacity at all, just purchase a 400-500GB for $100 or so to hold all your media and backups and such


@ russki ...coming from 4*36GB GD raptors in raid 0, and then upgrading to a single 74GB ADFD raptor later on... i 100% agree, that raid 0, is NOT faster for typical desktop uses.
April 20, 2007 12:29:45 PM

choirbass: I know you've always been a voice of reason in this debate. Everyone knows there's a time and place for RAID, just not typical gamers. Although I was a little surprise at those benchies in the most recent Anand article.

I do agree with your answer to the OP in the question's strictest form. I would still point out (to the OP) that there might be better options out there, some of which offer great speed while being much quiter than a Raptor and requiring less cooling, others offering a better cost per GB, and some offering a great combination of both. But if you require the fastest (and if you are constrainted to the two options you outlined), than what choirbass said.
April 20, 2007 10:07:38 PM

Quote:
I base my FACTS on personal experience. Adding a second drive and configuring the 2 for RAID 0 cut 14 to 30 seconds off my load times on BF2. I don't give a **** what Andtech says, because I've benched and tested myself and I know that my load times are better with RAID 0.

What do you base your "facts" on?


I think I quoted my sources, didn't I? I could quote more, too. And, by the way, I did run a RAID 0 myself for a while, and I thought it "felt" faster, too, until I went to a single faster drive which "felt" faster yet. I am not retentive enough to measure I'll be honest. But based on that, and particularly based on the reviews that show time after time that RAID0 has no advantage to average users, I believe that to be the case.

One other thing, too, all of the reviews from credible sources present their set-up and methodology. What was yours? Was the hard drive the only thing that changed? Did you use a clean system install? All those factors make a difference, and the key is consistency.

And if there is one consistent thing in all of this, it's that every real world benchmark ever performed by credible reviewers points to the same conclusion: RAID0 does not help. So if you want to start a pissing contest with some site like Anandtech be prepared to answer the questions above.

So I will ask you again, what was you set up in both cases, and what was the methodology?

First off, since it means so much to you, here's a review from a credible source: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/12/cheap_raid_ravages_wd_raptor/page7.html

Second, My methodolgy: After looking into it I considered Raid 0 an option from the beginning of my build, however I bought only one drive at first, the second I bought later. Both Drives are the same make and model (Western Digital Caviar RE WD3200YS). I Built the system in my sig in January with one of the 320 GB drives. Performed a clean XP Pro install, Installed necessary drivers, applications, and updates. Benchmarked real world applications and synthetic benchmarks. I later bought the second drive. Next step I took was I completely wiped and reset the first drive to zeros so both drives were comletely unformatted (raw). I installed the second drive, took the steps in my motherboard bios to initialize and setup Raid 0, then did a clean install of XP Pro, loading the NvRaid driver at the prompt during the install. I installed all of the same drivers, applications, and updates that I did the first time, then benchmarked again.

I used HDtach for the synthetic bechmark and ran repeated tests. Typical read and write performance ranged from about 50 to 70MB/s, average being about 59MB/s with the single drive. With 2 drives typical read and write perfomance ranged from about 90 to 130MB/s, average being about 112MB/s. For the real world bench I used a timer to measure load times on BF2, FEAR, and the time to start XP Pro (time till show desktop). Loading times on BF2 were cut significantly on the first map load (but not halved), typically shaving off 14 to 30 seconds. After the first load on BF2, much of the game data is already loaded in memory and a second load after a map was just played showed a smaller difference of about 5 to 11 seconds until the game was restarted again. FEAR showed a 2 second difference and XP startup time was NOT noticeably improved.

Third, I'm not here to start a pissing contest, a flame war, prove or disprove anyone else right or wrong, or otherwise stir up any kind of retarded internet war. I am stating that these are MY results with Raid 0, and I am not wrong in saying that it helps with BF2 loading times.

Now, if a fight is what you want, I'll be arriving in Phoenix Tuesday morning at 2:05 AM local time at the greyhound station. Meet me out front, I'll be the guy in all black with short spiked hair. :lol: 
April 20, 2007 10:42:32 PM

Could you link to the page in that review where they benchmark real-world apps?

I guess if you run HDtach all the time, then raid0 is a good solution. :tongue:

Seriously though, we all know what a raid0 is theoretically capable of, but no one building a gaming computer is going to run into a scenario that will use that capability.

I know, it sucked when I learned that too.
April 20, 2007 11:46:03 PM

I read that Seagate will introduce soon their own 10K HD. This will finally give us a choice and prices should go down. WD has been to long alone in this specific market.
April 21, 2007 12:19:45 AM

While the OP specifically requested the performance advantages of the comparison I have not seen anyone mention the fact that the Raptors have a MTBF that is way beyond the rest of the drives being mentioned. Surely a price can be put on that kind of reliability (as well as the performance advantages).
April 21, 2007 12:37:52 AM

even beyond the MTBF, is the warranty... because the MTBF is only estimated, but the warranty is guaranteed (as long as you keep your receipt and dont void it and everything)... the raptors have a 5 year warranty, but the seagates i think might only be 3 years (not positive about the seagate barracuda warranty though)

yay, 1100th post :) 
April 21, 2007 1:50:52 AM

LOL, congrats on 1100!
April 21, 2007 1:51:43 AM

thanks :D 
April 22, 2007 4:21:28 AM

Quote:
Well, I'm not suggesting either way, but my personal results have been better performance with raid 0 vs. a Raptor 150, BUT keep in mind that I use Western Digital Drives for the raid 0 setup, NOT Seagate Drives.

Take another grain...


WD's on a good raid0 are pretty hard to beat. It's a noticable difference now that I'm using a single drive.
April 24, 2007 11:25:11 PM

Yeah, thats what I'm saying, it is pretty noticable. but don't say it here cuz people will try to flame you to death and argue with you.
April 24, 2007 11:31:04 PM

well, if you do start putting out fallacies, that is what happens.
April 25, 2007 12:01:23 AM

right, but a fallacy implies an argument; i just stated my experience.
April 25, 2007 12:41:32 AM

Quote:
right, but a fallacy implies an argument; i just stated my experience.


Yes in your experience, it "felt faster" and that is fine. That's called the placebo effect.

But when you quote a number of seconds that it reduced your load times that has not been a repeatable result in lab testing, then that is putting out fallacies.
April 25, 2007 12:46:59 AM

That is incorrect. My experience is that it IS faster, not "feels" faster. Stop trying to argue with me.
April 25, 2007 1:00:31 AM

Quote:
That is incorrect. My experience is that it IS faster, not "feels" faster. Stop trying to argue with me.


As long as you are spreading misinformation about your results, I feel I have to make sure no one ends up making the wrong decision based off of your little stories.

It is faster by around 1 second to 2.5 seconds in certain games load times.

You can see benchmarks of that here.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2974&p=...

You said 14 to 30 seconds, which is blatantly false.

You should stop your wishful thinking. If you can find one site to back that claim up, then I will "stop trying to argue" :lol: 
April 25, 2007 6:50:15 AM

Quote:
That is incorrect. My experience is that it IS faster, not "feels" faster. Stop trying to argue with me.


As long as you are spreading misinformation about your results, I feel I have to make sure no one ends up making the wrong decision based off of your little stories.

It is faster by around 1 second to 2.5 seconds in certain games load times.

You can see benchmarks of that here.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2974&p=...

You said 14 to 30 seconds, which is blatantly false.

You should stop your wishful thinking. If you can find one site to back that claim up, then I will "stop trying to argue" :lol: 

Clean format Vista boot - 34.5 seconds.
Clean format Vista boot Raid0 - 17 seconds.

-Source: Me with a stopwatch.
April 25, 2007 6:52:01 AM

Quote:
Yeah, thats what I'm saying, it is pretty noticable. but don't say it here cuz people will try to flame you to death and argue with you.


I know man, it's like they are on some holy crusade against raid. I guess years of design, engineering, and production of that whole Raid-0 thing was a waste. It actually doesn't do anything. All these people that have bought into it. . . fools!

:lol: 
April 25, 2007 7:11:15 AM

with raid 0, yes, windows boot times do improve (increased I/Os). yes, theoretical benchmarks do benefit. yes, STRs are increased. yes, windows is marginally more responsive. none of that is even in question. because it has been proven, and most people already know it

its also been proven, that games are VERY picky about benefitting from raid 0... certain games do benefit, primarily older games; games consisting of primarily large bitmaps and such, where the cpu is not involved in decompressing the data as much... other newer games however, usually large games, FPS' for example, simply do not benefit, the data is compressed, and a faster array of hdds is not going to decompress the data any faster, at all... thats dependant on the cpu to do, a sufficient amount of memory helps here too to hold all the data, once its processed by the cpu (which is why its typically said that a faster cpu, more memory, or a faster single hdd will provide more benefit than raid 0 will)

oblivion - no benefit
battlefield 2 - no benefit
doom 3 - no benefit
quake 4 - no benefit

etc etc etc

older games like diablo 2 and the like however, there might be some benefit (the data is not heavily compressed that im aware)

the most youre going to experience, in your personal experience even, is around at most 1-2 seconds improvement from raid 0, getting more than that is going to greatly depend on the game... thats not to say that the experience while playing the game wont benefit, it usually does if youre constantly having to read from the hdd... but if you are constantly reading from it, you might want to consider just investing in more memory

so, raid 0 is not by any means useless... but for the average user, gamer, consumer, they really could better spend their money elsewhere... again, a faster graphics card, new monitor, more memory, better cooling system, faster cpu, faster hard drive, better sound system... those will all provide more benefit for the great majority of people, than a second identical hdd in raid 0 will... UNLESS, they know their specific use is going to directly benefit much from it... and gaming, is typically not one of those uses that does benefit much nowadays (at least when it comes to load times)
April 25, 2007 3:13:41 PM

Quote:
Yeah, thats what I'm saying, it is pretty noticable. but don't say it here cuz people will try to flame you to death and argue with you.


I know man, it's like they are on some holy crusade against raid. I guess years of design, engineering, and production of that whole Raid-0 thing was a waste. It actually doesn't do anything. All these people that have bought into it. . . fools!

:lol: 

Look man I am not on a crusade or anything :lol:  I would LOVE for my raid array (2 x 320gb seagate 7200.10) to have the kind of performance that alanman claimed. The facts are the facts though. The reason why you can't find benchmarks of games load times decreasing by a dramatic amount is beacause that doesn't actually happen.

There are plenty of times when a raid0 does help a lot, like compressing/decompressing files, scanning for viruses, etc. etc. I don't even buy the line about how people claim that raid0 is more expensive - it is actually cheaper to get the same amount of storage out of two smaller drives than one larger drive.

What Alanman claimed is that the load times for his games would decrease by 14 - 30 seconds, and the truth is that doesn't happen. Games are almost toally unaffected by a raid array. You can find proof of this all over the internet.

Honestly if you want to prove to anyone that what you are saying is true, you have to come with something a bit stronger than "I timed it and it's so faster!" despite what respected review sites say about it. I mean really you expect me to believe that you reinstalled vista twice since this thread began? Riiiiight :lol: 
April 25, 2007 4:21:19 PM

Quote:


If you look at the Anadtech's article (and for a while I stopped quoting the older article that compared Raptor RAID0 to a single drive because most of their real world application benchmarks were made with older apps), it specifically shows the Battlefield 2 load time bench for RAIDed and non-RAIDed drives. Here's the kicker - RAIDed Raptors give you a 1 (one) second advantage on one minute load time over a single drive, and 2 (two) seconds over the new Hitachi (which, by the way, OP, I would consider long and hard).


I made this point in another thread recently but it applies here also. The Anand BF2 load time test was done loading a map for single player. When loading a map for online play the game does a client verification which can take longer than loading the map. You're 2 seconds can become 4-5. When playing BF2 4-5 sec. is huge. The raid 0 players go to battle in jets and choppers. The single hd players get picked off out of their jeeps by the jets and choppers. This may sound trivial but a second 7200.1 hd is what,...94.99.

Just know the risks and protect you're data.
April 25, 2007 4:26:03 PM

Quote:


If you look at the Anadtech's article (and for a while I stopped quoting the older article that compared Raptor RAID0 to a single drive because most of their real world application benchmarks were made with older apps), it specifically shows the Battlefield 2 load time bench for RAIDed and non-RAIDed drives. Here's the kicker - RAIDed Raptors give you a 1 (one) second advantage on one minute load time over a single drive, and 2 (two) seconds over the new Hitachi (which, by the way, OP, I would consider long and hard).


I made this point in another thread recently but it applies here also. The Anand BF2 load time test was done loading a map for single player. When loading a map for online play the game does a client verification which can take longer than loading the map. You're 2 seconds can become 4-5. When playing BF2 4-5 sec. is huge. The raid 0 players go to battle in jets and choppers. The single hd players get picked off out of their jeeps by the jets and choppers. This may sound trivial but a second 7200.1 hd is what,...94.99.

Just know the risks and protect you're data.

4-5 seconds is believable. 14-30 is not. Just so long as you know what kind of real performance gain you're getting with your raid0. :wink:
April 25, 2007 10:18:46 PM

i would say something with some relavence or importance here but all the anti-raid crusaders care about is telling people they're wrong and flaming them, which i find to be pointless, so i'll no longer be watching this topic.
April 25, 2007 10:53:16 PM

i was hoping my last post would be the end of this thread... but, you have the difference here between fact, and fiction... it is as simple as that. what people wholeheartedly believe to be the case in their own perception... the problem is, it doesnt carry over to anyone elses perception, and is not reproducable for anyone else... pseudo reality... ...thats not to say theyre wrong, its just their perception... and for them, their computer might be faster than any other system in existance, a trillion times over... but for someone else, that same computer might be slower than frozen molassas, so slow its moving backwards even... ...numbers are just numbers... ...as long as youre happy with the performance of your system, thats all that should matter

beyond that... if youre looking for performance numbers and comparisons, just out of curiosity even, its best to google for a few different reviews from different sites that benchmark the things youre wondering about specifically, so you can get a good grasp (googling 'raid 0 game load times', for instance)... dont rely on forums for that, bypass them if you can... too many opinions, unless youre wanting only opinions... and dont care much about the numbers.
April 26, 2007 2:40:16 AM

sorry everyone for being so arguementative... ive been that way with everyone lately.

im sorry.
April 26, 2007 4:28:53 AM

Not bad. Sincere and contrite. Or you could try something like John Cleese -->

"Alright alright, I apologize. I'm really, really sorry. I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was motived purely by malice. And I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and was in no way fair comment, and I hereby undertake not repeat any such slander at any time in the future."
April 26, 2007 10:16:11 AM

ok, Guys lets be serious...

Raptors do outperform any other disk. To be honest no other disk comes even close to performance!!! Hitachi GST 1 TB measures 68.5 MB/s versus 75,3 of a raptor 70GB ADFD, in average read performance, Hitachi GST 1 TB measures 68.4 MB/s versus 74,7 of a raptor 70GB ADFD.
ANY other benchmark that you may look, you will see that Raptors outeperform every other disk. http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html?modelx=33&model1=678&model2=676&chart=37

The cost of them is the price you pay... as many of you allready mentioned. And you may gain only one second in the game battlefield, but if you come to think of it, what do you do in your home computer? convert songs, copy huge files, avi, games, install software etc. Things that raptors DO make a vast difference. I have a Raid 0 4x Raptors 36GB ADFD version, that have a true file system performance of 239MB/s. Not pysical, but true. and my Jaw drops everytime i copy a file from my other raid 0 (2 x 250GB WD).

Certainly, the price/performance ratio of the raptors is certainly the worst in the market. And 4 320GB disks have a true file system performance of 209 MB/s, versus the 239 Mb/s of the raptors. Keep in mind however, that i have serious doubts that the nvidia controller is a mediocre and a bottleneck for the performance of the 4 raptors. (read my other post).

And 2 tips for the friend that is wondering wich solution to go for.

if you decide to go for raptor MAKE SURE they are the ADFD series and NOT the GD series. The ADFD have 16MB of cache, while the GD series (older) have only 8MB. A HUGE Huge difference in performance.

secondly, avoid putting the raid in an Nvidia Controller. I would suggest try putting them on a silicon image or any other controller, benchmark them, and then put them in an nvidia controller and benchmark again. And draw your own conlusions.

If you want the ultimate, raptor IS the only choice. If you want 30Mb/s below the ultimate at half the cost, buy 4 320 Disks, and make a TB with very close performance...
April 26, 2007 4:28:26 PM

It actually is alot faster. Most notably in BF2, 2142, and MMO's like EQ2 and Vanguard.

Say you're standing in the middle of a meadow, and someone else comes riding down the road. Without raid, the game completely locks for a half second, maybe a full second, while the guy's uberarmor and horse textures and all that crap loads. With raid, he just runs by. No drop in performance. Ya, it's not a big difference. I'm not sure it's one you could even benchmark if you wanted. But it's there.

Whenever a new map loads during a game of 2142, I'm always the first in the server. Sometimes there are others that are active when I am. One or two. I always said "Raid rocks". They would say "Ya". Then everyone else would join and jump in my transport.

Two western digital 160's in R0 will eat Installshield's face. Games, patches, whatever. . . it installs in an instant. Large Zip's and Rar's? Pwnt.

It's not some BS "placebo effect". It's real. Raid kicks ass. Maybe if you spent some time with it, trying it for yourself - instead of reading some BS internet article and clinging to it for life - you would already know that. Eh?
April 26, 2007 5:22:28 PM

Quote:
Maybe if you spent some time with it, trying it for yourself...you would already know that. Eh?


I have a raid0 array that all of my games are installed on. If you had read my posts earlier you would know that.

Quote:
Two western digital 160's in R0 will eat Installshield's face. Games, patches, whatever. . . it installs in an instant. Large Zip's and Rar's? Pwnt.


I also mentioned earlier that Raid0 will help with compressed files and lots of other scenarios, again if you read my posts earlier, you would know that.

Quote:
I always said "Raid rocks". They would say "Ya".


Well heck why didn't you say that earlier! Now you have proven everything you claim! :lol: 

Quote:
Raid kicks ass

Quote:
Ya, it's not a big difference. I'm not sure it's one you could even benchmark if you wanted.


What?

Quote:
instead of reading some BS internet article and clinging to it for life


Yeah dewd, sockpuppet is way more reliable and trustworthy than Anandtech. Anand always makes BS internet articles. :lol: 
April 26, 2007 10:17:06 PM

dfalir wrote:
Quote:
If you want the ultimate, raptor IS the only choice. If you want 30Mb/s below the ultimate at half the cost, buy 4 320 Disks, and make a TB with very close performance...



Is that having all 4 on one RAID 0 array, or 2 on 2 arrays?
April 26, 2007 11:09:05 PM

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I will share my experiences here. I have 6 80GB Western Digital drives, that I have tested in many different configurations on both a decent hardware controller as well as an onboard controller. I will say that for general usage, RAID 0 doesn't make much of a difference for everyday use and gaming. Don't get me wrong, there is a difference, but there's much better things you could spend your money on. If you already have a fully tricked out system and still want more, then in that case I would recommend RAID 0. If you do decide on RAID 0, I can't stress enough how important backups are.


I've had very limited experience with systems with a single raptor, but I will say this, there were two almost identical systems I was working on, both with fresh Windows installs, one had a 74GB Raptor and one had 2x160GB Seagates(non perp) and the one with the dual Seagates seemed slightly faster. As I said I didn't use them long but I'm just throwing that out there.


To sum it up, a single 7200rpm drive is usually fine, anything more than that and you don't get much more performance for a lot more money, though if you have the money and the rest of the system is high end, go for it.


Quote:
ok, Guys lets be serious...

Raptors do outperform any other disk.



Wrong, wrong, wrong, I've used 15k SCSI drives that would eat the Raptor for breakfast, and don't say "well I meant consumer drives" because the Raptor isn't and was never intended to be a consumer drive, even if a lot of average joes buy it.

Quote:
If you want the ultimate, raptor IS the only choice.


The Raptor isn't the godliest drive out there like everyone makes it out to be, it is a good drive but it's certainly not the ultimate drive. It doesn't have the most amount of storage, it doesn't have the fastest seek times, it doesn't have the highest transfer rate, it doesn't have the lowest cost, it's not the most reliable drive, nothing "ultimate" about it.
!