Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Raptor 150gig or 74 gig vs fastest 7200 rpm drives

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 12, 2007 1:14:24 PM

Since the thread posted about the WD 750 gig drive vs raptor was not really responded to I figured I'd start a thread here. What do you guys thing? Is the 750 gig drive better in general and will not take a noticeable performance hit compared to the WD Raptor line?

Lets try to keep on topic people. :kaola:  ;) 
a b G Storage
July 12, 2007 1:45:57 PM

It depends on what you do right? If you are always loading files, then the graphs show what kind of performance difference you will see.


But both drives are very fast. The density of the 750gb helps quite a bit.
With the Raptor, you get a bit faster working space when addressing reading from the hard drive (remember many common actions cashe into memory so this isn't needed). With the 750gb drive, you get fast speeds and 750gb worth of space!

Also, keep in mind that both drives are still much slower then memory and neither are an excuse to skimp on 2/4gigs.
July 12, 2007 2:15:43 PM

go for the 750GB, the less people who buy performance parts like the raptor, the more they will improve them to make worth buying, the 750GB has lots of storage and speed and is relatively cheap.
Related resources
July 12, 2007 6:40:28 PM

The 750gb WD outperforms or performs on par with the 150gb raptor in most tests. The 74gb raptor still outperforms the 7200rpm drive, however.
a b G Storage
July 12, 2007 8:47:47 PM

That doesn't make sense. The 150gb raptor is far more dense and has a better access / read time. Can you check your facts on that? I might be wrong but I cant check now.

Anyway, it really depend on usage. If the OP doesn't need the space, and needs the performance, then ya. Otherwise, he can choose on cost.
July 12, 2007 9:19:47 PM

CompTIA_Rep said:
Anyway, it really depend on usage. If the OP doesn't need the space, and needs the performance, then ya. Otherwise, he can choose on cost.


Seconded - if you don't want the storage and can afford the premium, get the Raptor as it's still the fastest on the desktop. If you need the storage, get the 7200.
July 13, 2007 12:18:39 AM

Most of my computer work includes, either converting a video file from mpg to avi (stuff like that) audio encoding and gaming. I don't do video editing.Other stuff includes listening to music, word processing, spread sheets and other things that are not HDD intensive. I'm guessing the 750 gig would be a much better buy? You guys think I'd see much of a difference in performance for my primary HDD?

If i wanted back up, i'd either do a raid 5 of put in a sata back plane and fill up 500 gig drives as needed, then pull them.
a b G Storage
July 13, 2007 12:41:53 AM

Here is a thing to keep in mind: RAID is not a backup solution beyond small whioops.

Anyway, the 750gb has great performance, better price, more storage.
If you want to spend the extra cash and lose 600gb for the performance gain of the raptor 150, then go for it.
July 13, 2007 1:07:17 AM

So the difference in real world numbers are that much of a difference that its noticeable you're saying? hmm... I'll have to think about it when I upgrade. Its a hard call. Both are good drives.
July 13, 2007 3:47:44 AM

transfer rates aside, since both are roughly on par with each other in that area, the largest performance difference between them for an OS hdd (and even for most applications running on them), will simply be in your systems ability to access uncached data quickly (responsiveness), largely dictated by the rpms. however, after the data is accessed and stored in memory, the rpms are then much less of an issue, up until you reboot (or run out of available system memory, or clear it)... then recaching of those files is needed to negate the access time differences again. its why even the original 36GB GD raptor is still considered fast for an OS hdd, with transfer rates that arent quite top notch anymore either.
July 13, 2007 6:10:41 AM

Thats true choirbass, the old Xp load/ Vista load tests are in fact a valid test. Some drive like the WD1600AAJS that look good for sustained throughput pale under the o/s load test.

f61
July 13, 2007 6:28:16 AM

yeah, i mean, for example... since i had some spare 36GB GD raptors sitting unused (after upgrading to a single 74GB ADFD), i decided to put one in an external usb 2.0 hdd case that i got for my bday. i went and installed windows xp x64 on it, and you can definetly see where high transfer rates help (the 30MB/s usb 2.0 limit really gets in the way in these situations... and conversely you can see where fast access times help a lot too)... suprisingly (or not so suprisingly), all games i tried loaded nearly as quickly over the usb 2.0 36GB GD as they do on an unrestricted 74GB ADFD... in fact, most things load just about as fast, even with the bandwidth limitation. and when things need the higher STRs, you can tell too, lol... such as windows boot times benefit from the higher STRs (which is also why raid 0 tends to help a lot there, and why booting over usb 2.0 is slooow)
July 13, 2007 8:01:25 AM

Why not going for a Rapror as your Operating system and games disk and the 750 for movies, mp3 etc... I have an 160Gb Raptor (yes 160 not 150, custom made for Dells) and a 500GB WD, the previus from 750 with 16Mb cache. My system is kinda mid to low by todays standards (AMD 3800+ single core on Asus A8N-SLI with 1 GB DDR333) but windows load in about 20sec (no joke!) and in oblivion the loading times are a joke! Can you guys tell me of a benchmark for the HDD's so I can maybe post some real world numbers?
July 13, 2007 8:04:39 AM

blashyrkh said:
Can you guys tell me of a benchmark for the HDD's so I can maybe post some real world numbers?


pcmark05 might work for real world testing, possibly.
!