150 gig raptors NOT faster than 74 gig raptor...LOOK

[shaba230]

http://tweakers.net/reviews/621/2

You may want to see a translation of the page...but i couldn't figure out what language it was in...looks german but a german translation didn't help, so i dunno. either way i think the charts speak for themselves. This was the first site i had seen that benchmarked the

WD740ADFD and the WD1500ADFD together

 

[shaba230]

nevermind i figured it out, it's dutch.

use your favorite trasnlation service (systran is my fav) to translate the page if you'd like

 

[shaba230]

oh i just had to add a muhahahahah to everyone that kept insisting that the 150gig's were a little faster than the 74's :-D

 

[grifter33]

oh i just had to add a muhahahahah to everyone that kept insisting that the 150gig's were a little faster than the 74's :-D

They WERE faster. There was a recent revision of the 74 gig raptor which brought it up to speed with its big brother.

New Raptor

So take back your muhahahaha

 

[shaba230]

oh i just had to add a muhahahahah to everyone that kept insisting that the 150gig's were a little faster than the 74's :-D

They WERE faster. There was a recent revision of the 74 gig raptor which brought it up to speed with its big brother.

New Raptor

So take back your muhahahaha

those were the ones i used to hear people on here saying were better, i'm just comparing adfd to adfd, it's been out since jan '06.

p.s...not up to speed, but FASTER lol so i can't take my muhahaha back, i'm sorry LOL

But i will say thanks for the anandtech review!

EDIT: Damn the PC mark 05
EDIT: Damn Ipeak also
EDIT: In conclusion i have to take back HALF of my muhahaha because i was half right, they're about equal (with the 150 winning in the price/gb area though)

 

[specter]

I can see from that review that they are not much faster than my current Seagate 320GB 7200.10 Perpendicular Recording, not even at loading games, but only in synthetic tests which I don't care about. I was thinking of buying a Raptor 74GB ADFD only for faster load times but after seeing this I don't know if it's really worth it. What do you guys think?

 

[zenmaster]

Well the 150gb raptor is actually quite a bit fasterthan the 74gb raptor, but in a fashion that is now show in "Benchmarks".

HDDs are far faster on the outter edges of their platters than the inner portoins of their platters. As a result the data stored on the inner portions of the platters is accessed slower.

Toss 70gb of data on both drives and the you wil find that access to the middle of the 150gb HDD will be faster than the last data that was squeezed onthe the 74gb.

Most of these tests show "Best Case" results and less of what you see in real life. This is not to say that both drives are not amazingly fast.

 

[GSTe]

http://tweakers.net/reviews/621/2

You may want to see a translation of the page...but i couldn't figure out what language it was in...looks german but a german translation didn't help, so i dunno. either way i think the charts speak for themselves. This was the first site i had seen that benchmarked the

WD740ADFD and the WD1500ADFD together

Why would a 150GB raptor be faster than a 74gb raptor???

It was faster than the old 74GB because of the larger cache I think, but now they both have the same, the 74 is faster on paper at least.

 

[PC_Side_Line]

zenjerker u dont know what ur talkin about as usual.

 

[jt001]

zenjerker u dont know what ur talkin about as usual.

Learn how to spell, and if you're gonna criticize actually give a reason rather than zomg you're wrong.

Also, he is 100% correct on everything he said.

 

[SuperFly03]

I agree that he is right but that is purely due to the higher areal density. The same is true for a 250GB vs 500GB hard drive.

Raptor 150 wasn't mean to be a whole lot different than Raptor 74, mainly an areal density change and a native SATA connection, not a bridge connection from PATA to SATA. It isn't a brand new drive, just a refresh to take advantage of better areal density.

 

[choirbass]

in addition to those differences (comparing 74GB GD to 74GB ADFD), the 74GB ADFD also takes advantage of much newer firmware (i believe the same [or newer than] the 150GB ADFD, which was faster than the raptor X, AHFD), larger cache than the original (16MB to 8MB), larger single platter size (1*74GB platter compared to 2*36GB platters; the 150GB uses 2*74GB platters, instead of one large 150GB platter, in effect making it approximately the same performance as the 74GB ADFD, because essentially theyre the same capacity due to the density not being any different between the 74GB and 150GB, ones also newer too) it also uses NCQ instead of TCQ... the only things that are really the same between the older and newer 74GB raptors, i believe are the rpms, and the total capacity...

the newer 36GB 16MB ADFD i hear is even faster than the 74GB 16MB were comparing... speculation as to why, is because aside from the other identical specs, it uses half the same 74GB platter size, but only the outer sections (the fastest portions of a platter), and the other half i guess is disabled... which would indicate higher minimum and average transfer rates, but almost identical maximum transfer rates, i would think anyhow

heres a link to a PDF regarding the specs for all 3 ADFD series raptors:
http://www.wdc.com/en/library/sata/2879-001165.pdf

 

[SuperFly03]

Cool. Nicely played.

That I did not know.

 

[HA_ZEE]

Linkage to Toms charts on hardrives.......

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html?modelx=33&model1=280&model2=580&chart=32