Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I get Raptor 150 for system drive for video editing?

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 29, 2007 5:45:07 PM

I do a lot of video editing and Photoshop work at high resolutions. some uncompresed editing is done off a RAID 0 array of 4 disks.

My system drive needs to be replaced. I am looking at getting a raptor - but wonder if there will be any real performace reason for this as my system drive will only hold Windows XP and applications. All my video/audio/psd files are on a RAID 0 array.

So my question is if a system drive used only for apps, needs more than a WD2500KS 250GB SATAII?
June 29, 2007 6:29:32 PM

Just build a RAID 0 array of Raptors!
June 30, 2007 10:40:15 AM

a single 36GB, 74GB, or 150GB ADFD revision raptor will work just fine for an OS hdd (since they all offer the same throughput performance and specifications, just different total capacities and cost). the 36GB ADFD version however should be more than adequate capacitywise for just the OS and a few applications, if you do need more than that, theres always the 74GB and 150GB versions, if you usually install a LOT of applications (media storage would just be on a seperate larger 7200)

im gonna say no to going to for raid 0 for an OS hdd though, unless you dont mind the extra cost... but aside from that, a raptor is the most ideal OS hdd choice compared to other 7200s, primarily due to its faster seek times, which raid 0 does not help with, or improve.
Related resources
June 30, 2007 4:19:19 PM

Oh, so your saying they now make a Raptor in 75GB that is as fast as the 150? I was under the impression that the smaller drivers wernt as fast. But your saying there was a revision...
June 30, 2007 7:07:48 PM

yeah, theyve had a few revisions of all 3. on the latest revision, now they all feature 16MB cache, at least one side used of at least one 74GB 2.5" platter @ 10k rpms (36GB = 1 side), NCQ, TLER (for raid and server usages primarily), native sata150 connection, 5 year warranty, 8ms seek times, 87MB/s max, 75MB/s avg, 56MB/s min STRs (the 150GB is slightly slower for STRs though due to having 2 74GB platters, instead of just 1)... thats all i can remember off hand though, but, the ADFD firmware revision is the current version of all 3 (WD360ADFD, WD740ADFD, WD1500ADFD)
June 30, 2007 7:51:14 PM

Quote:
I do a lot of video editing and Photoshop work at high resolutions. some uncompresed editing is done off a RAID 0 array of 4 disks.

My system drive needs to be replaced. I am looking at getting a raptor - but wonder if there will be any real performace reason for this as my system drive will only hold Windows XP and applications. All my video/audio/psd files are on a RAID 0 array.

So my question is if a system drive used only for apps, needs more than a WD2500KS 250GB SATAII?


I've got two different rigs that I use for Photoshop and video editing. Both run Opty 170s, DFI CFX3200s and 2GB of DDR500. One has a 150GB Raptor, the other has two 74GB Raptors (plus other drives for backup). The 2x74GB machine has the OS on one 74 and uses the other 74 as the pagefile. The 150GB HD rig has the OS on a 70GB partition and the pagefile on a 70GB partition. I've done some casual benches on the two by running Photoshop macros on large images. The 2x74GB machine is a few percent faster than the 150GB machine. Rendering video on the two machines is also slightly faster on the 2x74GB machine. I seem to remember that the 150 benches faster than the 74, so it's possible that having the pagefile on a separate drive is the difference between the two.
June 30, 2007 8:57:09 PM

You might want to check the hard drive charts here. You'll find that some hard drives are close to performance with the Raptors at a cheaper price and more bang for the buck (bigger hard drives).
I own two Raptors myself but if something is comparable to their performance while having more space, you'd have to consider it.
July 3, 2007 4:29:24 PM

For the sake of clarity, that chart-set doen't include the WD1600YS, which should be compared with all other 7200R's. I consider it the 'po-man's raptor'. But the WD1600AAJS (NCQ) is included, and should be close. That drive has some very good sustained transfer rates... 64Mb if not mistaken, however, like all 7200R's there are certain performance hits.

Then again performance per $ is also higher.

f61
July 3, 2007 9:09:16 PM

Arnt western digital "RE" (raid edition) Hard drives slower than SE16 drives? Maybe im wrong- but i thought SE16 was the top performance version of Western digitals lineup. ?? Unless RE are just as fast as SE16...
July 7, 2007 4:26:06 AM

Quote:
You might want to check the hard drive charts here. You'll find that some hard drives are close to performance with the Raptors at a cheaper price and more bang for the buck (bigger hard drives).
I own two Raptors myself but if something is comparable to their performance while having more space, you'd have to consider it.


I would defiantly second this. Take a good look at the new WD 750 GB HDD. It performs on par with the Raptors & it offers several times the capacity.
!