I'm upgrading my computer soon, and I would like one of the hot new hard drives from either Western Digital or Seagate.
Assuming their cache sizes are the same, how does a Serial ATA II 7,200 RPM hard drive compare to a Serial ATA 10,000 RPM hard drive? (I plan on going with the Serial ATA II standard for this motherboard...)
I wish I could help you here, but I'm in the same position, can't decide between big storage on a sata II, or a 10k rpm drive that's noisier but techinicaly should be faster
High there, it depends one, in my experience, of two things.
First, heat. The 10K Raptors do kick out alot of heat, so you do really need a decent airflow over the Hd's to keep them cool.
Secondly, what are you using them for? If for gaming, then i'd say yes, go for it, if your budget warrents it, have one for the OS, and one for the gaming files.
There are a few articles that i have read on TG, so perusing them will help you give a more informed answer.
I already have a modded antec p180b for optimal airflow for cooling and silence, so that's not much of an issue. For me it is whether the extra speed of a raptor is enough to justify loosing storage, especialy after seeing the performance of some of the better sata 2 drives using perpendicular recording for more space and speed
I really don't have to store a lot, and I don't play a lot of games. But I am really interested in getting more speed out of my system. I am also moving from an 8MB cache in my old drive to hopefully one with a 16MB cache...
I upgraded from 2 WD 120gb 8mb cache Sata Raid 0 first gen, to 2x 150gb 16 mb cache Raptors and saw a night and day difference! Each raptor has a 80mm fan on it and they run great, little louder but its def worth it! If you can afford it then go for it.
It depends what you are doing. I have both a Raptor 150 and 400GB SATA 300 drives (there is no such thing as SATA II). From my experience, if you are doing small file seeks the Raptor is your best bet, if you are storing larger amounts of data or are doing more frequent STR then the higher density 7200 drives would be better.
I have a Raptor because I used to play Lineage II which is overloaded with small files. Every time you hit a load point or port my Raptor goes absolutely nuts seeking all over the disk. So, compared to my 400GB Seagates it is 100x faster (perception, not reality). However, for my music, programs, general crap my Seagate is quite zippy and current PMR drives are even faster. Hitachi's new 1TB drive *i think* matches the Raptor in STR in some areas.
In summary: It depends, lol.
It also depends on your budget.
Edit: Grunberg, the cache isn't really going to make a damn bit of difference because most files won't be stored in the cache of the hard drive. It is nice to have more... but as far as expecting a performance increase out of it, that is a bit off base.
What would you say about the speed of two 320gig sata 3gbs in raid 0 compared and the pricing compared to the performance and stability of a 150gb raptor. Since I know I can't afford raid 0 of raptors, I either have to go raid 0 of sata 3gbs or one raptor
I can get an open box 750gig sata 3gbs hard drive if I need to for just $100. So in total, the cost would come up to that of a raptor with far more capacity. I really mainly want faster boot times and faster app loading times. I do game a bit, bit it's mostly tons of school work, so having my apps for school load faster is going to be nice
I am going to assume you are doing normal school work (i.e. papers, speadsheets, maybe a bit of light coding) and not intense college level work (i.e. graphc design, photoshop, rendering). So I would say the Raptor would be quicker. The reason I say that is because under the assumed environment your files are typically pretty small, 5MB would a huge file in a manner of speaking, so you won't actually get alot of benefit out of RAID 0. From the information I have it doesn't seem like you would be doing a great deal of large STR/STW's making RAID 0 all but useless.
Also, RAID increases boot time by 3-5 seconds depending on how long it takes the controller to go through the recognition sequence. After being detected the array will trim off a few (think 5) seconds off the boot time of an older, fragmented, poorly maintained OS, but it will only shave 2 seconds off a well maintained OS image (light startup programs, properly defragged, etc.).
That being said, how much information do you need to store? If you have more than 120GB of stuff, you should probably go for the 2x320.
I've used RAID 0 and it can be quite quick, but for seeks it is no better than a single well designed 7200 RPM drive. I have a hard time recommending a Raptor because of the $/GB (a disadvantage which you know) but I have even greater reservations recommending RAID 0 due to the specific kind of work it is designed to do. 8)
Then in that case, I shall wait for seagate's 10k rpm sata drive that should lower raptor prices to the least
Not gonna happen.
WD are the only IDE/SATA manufacturer that don't have a high end SCSI enterprise line to protect.
If Seagate started releasing 10k RPM SATA drives, people might stop buying so many of their 10k RPM SCSI drives that cost 3x the price....
So, I cant see us ever having 10k RPM SATA drives from anyone but WD.
Maybe when all SCSI drives migrate to 15k RPM....
What we need is a PMR based Raptor.
The higher data density of the latest Seagates and Hitachis is what enables them to keep up in the sustained transfer stakes. Give this advantage to the Raptor and we may see a 300GB Raptor with much better sustained transfer.
Raptors still lead by a huge margin in random reads however.
I believe it will. Becase businesses and enterprises use scsi drives for the higher stability along with the speed they have, they wouldn't downgrade to sata just because of saving a few hundred bucks. To huge corporations, that means nothing, they'd take the 15k rpm scsi drives that are more stable anyday
In the end, seagate would be making more money by releasing a sata variant of their 10k line since vary few people outside of businesses use scsi drives anyways, so they'd be winning the high capicity market, and the high speed one. Win-win situation for them
I am not sure Seagate will release a drive. I am not discounting it though.
The market the Raptor is aimed at is small business/enthusiasts. Raptors are great entry level server hard drives. In a small business environment (maybe 100-250 employee) you only need to build a basic desktop with a few raptors in RAID 5 and you've got a server that can do anything you really want it to. Obviously on a corporation level the Raptor has no place, there is no way Raptor could ever compete with SCSI 15k RPM drives, just isn't going to happen (WD knows this).
Seagate on the other hand has the established Cheetah line in the server grade segement, so their decision becomes on of cost benefit, as is everything in business. If they can create a Raptor competitor to the market and make more profit overall as a company, I think they will. What you have to run is the cannibalization of sales figures. Someone will opt in favor of a Raptor competitor instead of a Cheetah, the question is how many and is the gross margin on Raptor competitor more than a Cheetah.
These are questions I can't answer. What I can say is we definitely need a Raptor competitor to bring down the $/GB.
My guess is that if they release a 10k rpm sata cheetah, then to the least if the price is good they will gain market share, something that's always good these days with amd in desperate need of it
The higher data density of the latest Seagates and Hitachis is what enables them to keep up in the sustained transfer stakes. Give this advantage to the Raptor and we may see a 300GB Raptor with much better sustained transfer
PMR would be totally useless, there are several 300GB SAS HD without PMR.
Do you know why 10k and 15k HDs have much lower capacity compared to recent 7200 drives?
It's nothing concerning the magnetic medium, it's simply a matter of electronics: at this moment there's no commercially available amplifier being able to treat the signal coming out of an hypotetical 750GB HD running at 10k or 15k RPM.
PMR would be totally useless, there are several 300GB SAS HD without PMR.
Do you know why 10k and 15k HDs have much lower capacity compared to recent 7200 drives?
It's nothing concerning the magnetic medium, it's simply a matter of electronics: at this moment there's no commercially available amplifier being able to treat the signal coming out of an hypotetical 750GB HD running at 10k or 15k RPM.
Say what? :?:
I don't get it. I have a feeling I am missing something lol.
The higher data density of the latest Seagates and Hitachis is what enables them to keep up in the sustained transfer stakes. Give this advantage to the Raptor and we may see a 300GB Raptor with much better sustained transfer
PMR would be totally useless, there are several 300GB SAS HD without PMR.
Do you know why 10k and 15k HDs have much lower capacity compared to recent 7200 drives?
It's nothing concerning the magnetic medium, it's simply a matter of electronics: at this moment there's no commercially available amplifier being able to treat the signal coming out of an hypotetical 750GB HD running at 10k or 15k RPM.
PMR would lead to a significant increase in data density.
Higher data density means faster data read/write for the same linear head velocity.
Yes, there are 300GB SAS non-PMR drives, they accomplish this with more platters.
You cannot simply continue to add platters to a drive spinning at high speeds such as 10k or 15k RPM, as it has to be extremely well engineered to be fully balanced at this speed.
...how does a Serial ATA II 7,200 RPM hard drive compare to a Serial ATA 10,000 RPM hard drive?
A 10k RPM HDD doesn't approach the transfer speed of SATA, aka SATA 1. The SATA 3.0 Gbit/s specification - aka SATA II - shouldn't affect your decision to purchace a hard drive. As always, I stand to be corrected by more experienced members of this forum.
...how does a Serial ATA II 7,200 RPM hard drive compare to a Serial ATA 10,000 RPM hard drive?
A 10k RPM HDD doesn't approach the transfer speed of SATA, aka SATA 1. The SATA 3.0 Gbit/s specification - aka SATA II - shouldn't affect your decision to purchace a hard drive. As always, I stand to be corrected by more experienced members of this forum.
There is no such thing as SATA 1 and SATA II. They don't exist. What does exist is SATA 150 a
