Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Raptor vs 7200 drives

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 1, 2007 11:47:56 PM

Researching my upcoming build, I was planning on having OS/apps on a Raptor and then a pair of large drives in raid1 for storage (system will be used for heavy duty photo editing and gaming).

After reading some threads on the homebuilt forum, I'm beginning to wonder exactly how much faster the Raptors are in real world conditions. Most of the comparisons I've found have been between the older versions and the newest 150gb raptors, but not with standard (new) 7200 rpm drives.

Anyone with experience care to chime in if they're really worth the extra money? Looks like you can get a 150 for about 150 off ebay... I also here that the next generations are due out sometime soon...

Thanks for the help

More about : raptor 7200 drives

June 1, 2007 11:54:42 PM

Quote:
Researching my upcoming build, I was planning on having OS/apps on a Raptor and then a pair of large drives in raid1 for storage (system will be used for heavy duty photo editing and gaming).

After reading some threads on the homebuilt forum, I'm beginning to wonder exactly how much faster the Raptors are in real world conditions. Most of the comparisons I've found have been between the older versions and the newest 150gb raptors, but not with standard (new) 7200 rpm drives.

Anyone with experience care to chime in if they're really worth the extra money? Looks like you can get a 150 for about 150 off ebay... I also here that the next generations are due out sometime soon...

Thanks for the help


You can take the Raptors for an in depth test comparison here:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html?modelx=33&mo...
June 2, 2007 12:03:47 AM

Thanks. I looked at this, but frankly I have no idea what the difference between an 8ms seek time and a 13ms seek time is...

The XP startup time shows that the Raptor is 1.3 seconds slower than a Seagate drive I currently have. This test seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm wondering about real world performance. If you're playing a current game, are you going to get any sort of substantial benefit from the raptor?
Related resources
June 2, 2007 12:14:49 AM

The Raptors are considerablly faster than a single 7200 rpm drive. I use three WD RAPTOR 74 GB and one WD Raptor SATA 150 on three different systems. One system is a dual boot Vista 32 HP Raptor 150 along with a Windows XP Pro installed on a Raptor 74 GB drive. Two 7200 rpm drives installed in a RAID 0 configuration gives similar performance to a WD Raptor drive. To answer your general question, Raptors are faster than 7200 rpm drives and the difference is noticble in everyday use.
June 2, 2007 12:31:05 AM

what about 2 drives in raid 0 vs raptor for gaming?
June 2, 2007 12:34:16 AM

Quote:
I have no idea what the difference between an 8ms seek time and a 13ms seek time is...

5 ms of course, but in real terms, it means anytime the hd needs to find something on the disk, it does it
(8/(13-8 ) )x100-100 percent faster, or 60% faster.
then after it finds the data, it transfers it (10/7.2)x100-100, 0r 38% faster.
depending on what things you are doing, you can expect them to be done 40-45% faster with a 10K hd, and raptors are reliable too.
if you are opening and closing documents or pic files all day, then you can save a lot of time. if you are playing games online, then you will be one of the first to enter the next map
June 2, 2007 12:35:00 AM

Cool, thanks. Any other opinions?

As to the raptors being 'considerably faster', does that mean when I'm working on a 1gb image file or loading a game I'll say 'Wow! That was fast!', or is it less impressive?

In other words, would the extra $50-$100 (depending on where it's bought) be better invested in something else, like an extra 2gb of ram.
June 2, 2007 12:38:04 AM

Quote:
what about 2 drives in raid 0 vs raptor for gaming?


We are on a subject that has been discussed in depth, over and over on the Forumz. Depending on who's test results you are reading, two 7200 drives in RAID 0 are about equal to or give slightly better performance than a single Raptor. If you are using a single drive, the 10 K raptors will give faster performance than a single 7200 Sata drive. There is a lot of current development in the field of HD and HD performance. So who knows. Things will certainly change.
June 2, 2007 12:42:23 AM

Quote:
Cool, thanks. Any other opinions?

As to the raptors being 'considerably faster', does that mean when I'm working on a 1gb image file or loading a game I'll say 'Wow! That was fast!', or is it less impressive?

In other words, would the extra $50-$100 (depending on where it's bought) be better invested in something else, like an extra 2gb of ram.


I use eight or ten systems I have built every day or at least every week. I appreciate using the three systems I have built with Raptor 10 K drives. So yeah, if you are an enthusiast, having the benefit of a faster main system drive matters. I notice the difference and I notice it a lot. Just my experience.
June 2, 2007 12:43:32 AM

Quote:

5 ms of course, but in real terms, it means anytime the hd needs to find something on the disk, it does it
(8/(13-8 ) )x100-100 percent faster, or 60% faster.
then after it finds the data, it transfers it (10/7.2)x100-100, 0r 38% faster.
depending on what things you are doing, you can expect them to be done 40-45% faster with a 10K hd, and raptors are reliable too.
if you are opening and closing documents or pic files all day, then you can save a lot of time. if you are playing games online, then you will be one of the first to enter the next map


Right, this makes sense. I'm not going to be keeping data other than os/apps on the raptor (though I suppose I could while working on it...) so these increases would really apply to loading apps. So then, why is the raptor slower to load xp than the seagate 7200's?
June 2, 2007 12:44:09 AM

if you already have 2gB ram, then another 2 is probably not an issue, and i have heard a lot of problems with peoples set up supporting 4 gB.
i know that when i play, the maps load much faster. for $100 that is worth it to me. you have to ask yourself how much you play.
but even editing in photoshop, or doing a full build in unrealED, it saves time
June 2, 2007 12:45:21 AM

What about in gaming, I have heard that Raid 0 makes no difference in gaming, only in big files and programs. Is this true, I have heard yes and no?
June 2, 2007 12:48:38 AM

Quote:
Researching my upcoming build, I was planning on having OS/apps on a Raptor and then a pair of large drives in raid1 for storage (system will be used for heavy duty photo editing and gaming).

After reading some threads on the homebuilt forum, I'm beginning to wonder exactly how much faster the Raptors are in real world conditions. Most of the comparisons I've found have been between the older versions and the newest 150gb raptors, but not with standard (new) 7200 rpm drives.

Anyone with experience care to chime in if they're really worth the extra money? Looks like you can get a 150 for about 150 off ebay... I also here that the next generations are due out sometime soon...

Thanks for the help


In Almost all of the benchmarks the raptor is the winner (how ironic is that the 74gb is faster, probably because it has 1 plate only)

I think you really gain more perfomance when we talk about RAID 0.
June 2, 2007 12:50:29 AM

Quote:


In Almost all of the benchmarks the raptor is the winner (how ironic is that the 74gb is faster, probably because it has 1 plate only)

I think you really gain more perfomance when we talk about RAID 0.



Ya, I'm an idiot and misread the chart (Mb/s NOT time to start-up). Thanks.
June 2, 2007 12:54:42 AM

Quote:
why is the raptor slower to load xp than the seagate 7200's?

this information is strangely familiar, and frankly, i don't believe it.
it was some set of numbers people were picking up on a google search, and didn't jive with lots of other numbers from other sources.
but i am a sick puppy, running a pair of water cooled raptor 74's in Raid0
June 2, 2007 12:59:09 AM

Well I only see a Hitachi and a Maxtor been better than the raptor (excluding the single-plates raptors)

I dont know what u mean by saying is slower than seagates 7200s
June 2, 2007 1:23:26 AM

Raptors are noticeably faster - I have a 74GB one (00FLC0), and when I play a game that supposedly has long level loads, I never notice it at all.

Having said that, I'm convinced my SCSI 15K drive is even faster, but that's another argument :) 

But it's all about cost and space. I don't have any need for lots of hd space, so paying £90 for 74GB was fine for me. If you do need the capacity, you'd be better getting one of the Seagate 7200.10 drives.
June 17, 2007 5:29:27 AM

Quote:
, I'm convinced my SCSI 15K drive is even faster, but that's another argument

well, yeah! :lol: 
what i do is run xp and games on my raptor raid0, and then store everything on another drive. it isn't active, i actually have to think, "is this important to me and can't be replaced"
if it can't be replaced, then the file should be backed up on cd ,dvd.
i get so annoyed with people saying you double your chances of loosing data if you use raid0. that much is true. but if you love your data, you should be willing to back - it -up anyway!
1X is still a chance, its just half as much as the other number

Quote:
I also here that the next generations are due out sometime soon...

the answer here is probably no. advances in HDD technology are slow in camparison to cpu's.
you have spinning metal disks, which have to have a minimum thickness, or they would fly apart.
so you have 2 disks, then 3 disks to try and increase the density. there is a limit.
probably something like your flash drive will win out. no moving parts, portable, creates no heat. they are pushing on 10's of Gbytes now.
wouldn't you love to have a motherboard with 20 Gbytes of flash space and xp pre installed ?
June 17, 2007 7:05:05 AM

If you have money and really need those extra few seconds of loading times, Raptors are the way to go.
June 17, 2007 3:00:49 PM

I have a Raptor Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

sorry, had to say that :p 
June 17, 2007 3:19:37 PM

I decided to go with 2 160 GB WD Caviar's and I am pleased with them. Although the average seek time is slower than a raptor, the transfer speed is higher. On the interactive Hard disk charts, the raptor is rated at an average transfer rate of about 75 MB/s with my setup, i get about 95 MB/s Average transfer rate.

The only downside of this setup is that if you reset the bios and forget to tell the board to use the hard drives in raid it will screw them up. I did this once. I reset the bios and forgot to set it to use the raid feature. It then tried to boot off a single HD and, of course, failed. This messed up the raid array and I had to reformat both drives and start over. fortunately, I had just built the computer that day and didn't have much on it, but it was still frustrating and I vowed to never let it happen again.
June 17, 2007 4:18:23 PM

Raptors are a waste of money unless the money isnt a waste to you.

There's some useless advice which makes no sense. Use it wisely.
June 17, 2007 6:35:29 PM

raptors can be compared to a top performing cpu/gpu/memory/etc... they all offer top performance, but the price premium over other more mainstream parts isnt 'always' worth it. in the case of a raptor, the $/GB isnt taken into account really if youre largely concerned about just getting the most performance on a sata hdd, because performance is top notch regardless, even if the capacity isnt, and capacity is a raptors main weak point above and beyond all else. "if you need the fastest sata hdd for hosting your OS on, and dont mind spending a little extra on it to get that (usually you dont need a ton of capacity for your OS), theres only really one option" but if you do need the additional capacity for your OS, there are plenty of other options

as such, i have ubuntu running on a 9-10GB partition on the beginning of my 74GB (so thats a consistant 87MB/s from beginning to end, at <8ms seek time, since the hdd is nearly partitioned to a 7th of its original size, 7th stroked?, so everything pretty much just loads immediately)... and vista64 just running on the remaining space, considering how bloated and sluggish vista is currently, i dont use it much really except when i decide to game... and for local data storage, i just have a 400GB maxtor (and an older 36GB raptor externally over usb 2.0 for redundancy of files i really dont want to lose, the data throughput is bottlenecked at <30MB/s that way, but locating files is still fast at 8ms)
!