the only thing that has really left raptors behind in the consumer storage area, is capacity, though 7200s are getting pretty close to raptors in desktop performance due to the much larger platters as a result of PMR (theyre currently at 334GB platters which are soon to be released, compared to the current raptors 74GB platters), $/GB for 7200s is also pretty low now too as a result, compared to raptors. so you may be able to make use of a much larger hdd, but for strictly performance reasons, there still isnt anything out yet that has surpassed raptors from an overall performance viewpoint, except for even faster raptors... this assuming you have the 74GB GD revisions. but if you have the 74GB ADFD raptors, youre still good.
the main differences between them are going to be their platter densities, which allow for higher STRs (sequential transfer rates) and slightly more responsive seek times as a result (denser platters allow more data to be able to be accessed faster in less time in a given area, even if the access and seek times themselves dont actually improve that rpms would be responsible for), increased cache sizes, and a native sata interface allowing ncq, which is good for servers (the older 74gb raptor had a pata to sata bridge, and support for tcq, tcq wasnt quite as widespread though). theres also raff, and tler, which are good for compensating for errors in raid arrays and such.
however...
if budget really isnt an issue, you may be able to go for some 15k sas (serial attached storage) hdds (you need an sas compatible sata controller though, sas controllers are compatible with both sata and sas hdds)... a cheaper alternative is to pick up some 15k scsi hdds terminated cable and u160 scsi controller off of ebay for cheaper, the older 15k scsis arent quite as tuned to single user environments and performance though (even though scsis arent really tuned for single users anyhow), so 10k raptors are sometimes faster for single users in that case, or at least pretty close.
another option for no budget, is to go for an ssd (solid state disk) hdd. $/GB is horrible, but for gaming there isnt a better option for performance (even without using raid 0, as access/seek times will make the single largest difference above and beyond all else for gaming performance the vast majority of times, access/seek times are practically nonexistant for ssds). for rendering though im not sure, if it requires high transfer rates anyhow... but if rendering does, a raptor or 15k scsi/sas may be your best bet then, as ssds currently offer lower STRs than mechanical hdds do.
though you could always do raid 0 ssd hdds, for the added STRs for rendering if needed, added capacity, and nonexistant access/seek times for games...
another solid state option for minimal access/seek times is something like gigabytes iRAM, which uses up to 4GB of ddr1 ram as storage (not included)... overall its less expensive than an ssd, has much higher transfer rates (due to using ddr1 ram as storage), but its capacity is also noticably less (the iRAM is ideal for hosting an OS if nothing else though, simply due to its limited capacity, though again theres always raid 0 to get around that...).
regarding raid 0 and ssds, data loss (as a result of an unbootable array) simply isnt a concern due to mechanical hdd failures, as there arent any moving parts in them unlike normal hdds (which have a typical failure rate of 1 every other year or so on average, making backups of all your needed data essential), so, thats something to consider, as is the warranty length too.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram