Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

10,000 RPM vs SATA 300

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 16, 2007 11:27:16 AM

Which would give you a better performance gaming wise?

Ive looked around for hard drives and I can find 10K RPM drives, but there all SATA 150, but there are 7200 RPM drives that are SATA 300.

If you had a choice, which would you go with? Or would you just wait till the 10K came out in SATA 300 in a couple of months.

More about : 000 rpm sata 300

February 16, 2007 12:03:09 PM

even 10,000 RPM drives (the raptors) don't use sata150 fully. so 7200RPM can't. For a genral drive, go for a 7200RPM on whatever interface.
a b G Storage
February 16, 2007 12:06:09 PM

For the 10 gazillionth time, there is no difference between drives when looking only at the SATA 150 or 300 interfaces. Todays mechanical drives cannot come close to using even half the bandwidth of the SATA 150 interface, the SATA 300 is just a bigger number to catch your attention. For performance, it means absolutely nothing at all.

A 10,000 rpm SATA 150 drive will be faster than a SATA 300 @ 7200rpm.
Related resources
February 16, 2007 12:07:02 PM

gaming wise, th e difference wud be negligible

10K RPM drives are normally for servers, with the exception of the raptors.

As they are designed for rack cases/seerver rooms, most 10K drives run way hotter than sata equivs, hav no noise dampening, more audible, use more power, but they are faster.

Get a 10K is u need the reliability and xtra nth of speed, otherwise, go with the sata
February 18, 2007 12:31:15 AM

10k rpm is noticably faster. 30-40% faster when it comes to tasks such as unpacking big rar-archives. Definitely go with the 10k raptor sata I.
February 18, 2007 12:36:46 AM

Quote:
10k rpm is noticably faster. 30-40% faster when it comes to tasks such as unpacking big rar-archives. Definitely go with the 10k raptor sata I.


not really, id say more 10-25% faster. looking at the THG charts and other reveiws, the 74GB raptor (which is the fatset) with the latest revisiona nd firmwarwe, noly packs abt 70-75 peak, and ab 62-70 average.

it might sound impressive, but most wd/segates are about 52mb average, 65peak, and some of the BUDGET samsungs are 60 average and abt 68 peak.
February 18, 2007 1:10:55 AM

Quote:
Which would give you a better performance gaming wise?

Ive looked around for hard drives and I can find 10K RPM drives, but there all SATA 150, but there are 7200 RPM drives that are SATA 300.

If you had a choice, which would you go with? Or would you just wait till the 10K came out in SATA 300 in a couple of months.


to answer your question... neither will give better performance really 'while' gaming. for map loading however, the raptor will, but its also noticably more expensive per GB compared to other 7200rpm hdds

using HDTune 2.53:

the 74GB 16MB raptor i have for instance, has a max transfer rate of 85MB/s, an avg transfer rate of 75MB/s and a min transfer rate of 55MB/s

compared to a spare 36GB 8MB raptor (which is nearly on par with most decent 7200rpm hdd nowadays), has a max transfer rate of 63MB/s, an avg transfer rate of 56MB/s, and a min transfer rate of 43MB/s

but, the increase in performance of a raptor, and comparatively limited capacity, is not worth the increase in cost, certainly not when price/performance/capacity is a major concern
February 18, 2007 1:21:16 AM

Quote:
Which would give you a better performance gaming wise?

Ive looked around for hard drives and I can find 10K RPM drives, but there all SATA 150, but there are 7200 RPM drives that are SATA 300.

If you had a choice, which would you go with? Or would you just wait till the 10K came out in SATA 300 in a couple of months.


I think the answer to your question is most definitely the WD Raptor....it's common sense. Now if you're not looking to spend the greens on a Raptor, pick up a couple of cheap 80 gig 7200 rpm SATA's. Arrange them in RAID 0 and have another drive available to store your data on. You'll be impressed with your new found speed without the crushing credit card bill. At just over $40 a pop, hell, get 3. You'll still be under the price of one Raptor.

...this coming from an owner of 3 Raptors.
February 18, 2007 1:52:32 AM

...im aware of the synthetic benefits of going with raid 0... but why do you keep recommending raid 0 to people looking for improved gaming performance?

...i had 4*36GB raptors in raid 0 before as well, sure, the benchmark results are impressive... and i believed it was faster too, because windows was marginally more responsive, booted up noticably faster, and because the benchmarks put it way above any other single hdd... but having 4 raptors in raid 0 for gaming, is no different than having a single 36GB raptor (it was an expensive lesson to learn)... you may see an improvement of about ~1 second on average for most games (google for raid 0 game load times, or something similar to that, there are quite a few reviews and benchmarks on it from reputable sources)...

...for gaming, raid 0 seldom provides much benefit (except when the game levels mostly consist of just bitmaps and such)... youll nearly always experience a much greater benefit in loading times, from having a faster single hdd, more system memory, or a faster cpu... but not from raid 0... which is why i went with the faster single hdd, instead of continuing to use raid 0

in real world situations, a 2 hdd raid 0 array optimally provides up to about 15% improvement compared to a single hdd, due to its increased STR... and thats primarily when dealing with large files too, editing and transferring them, such as audio, video files... but not gaming.
February 18, 2007 4:38:12 AM

Quote:
not really, id say more 10-25% faster.


Well I tried unpacking the same 720meg 50 part rar archive on 5-6 of my disks (usb, ide, sataII, raptor, etc) as a test - and the two fastest were a spanned volume (three sataII disks) clocking in at just over 24 seconds, whereas the sataII was slightly slower, but the raptor did it in 16.9 seconds. So for me it was very noticable.
!