Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

300GB VelociRaptor VS Dual 74GB Raptors in Raid 0-Please Help!

Last response: in Storage
Share
September 23, 2008 2:53:06 AM

Hi, so I was planning to use two 74gb raptors in raid 0 for my rig, but now people have been telling me one 300gb velociraptor would be better.

Well, how? I mean honestly, raid 0 increases performance by a wide margin, and they're both 10k rpm drivers already. So how could it be worse than ONE 10K RPM drive?

So, which would be faster, and why?

Thanks a bunch :bounce: 

Note: If it helps, will be used for intense hardcore gaming (With my $1600 GPU combo, I'll be running crysis at 2560x1600 on DX10, max settings full AA/AF at 30-38 fps). So yea, I don't want a bad HDD to bottleneck me
September 23, 2008 3:04:53 AM

Well if you really want fast go with 2 SAS 15K drives at 300GB each in a raid 0
September 23, 2008 5:01:43 AM

bobbknight said:
Well if you really want fast go with 2 SAS 15K drives at 300GB each in a raid 0


Don't have that kind of money to spend on an HDD, please answer the question
Related resources
September 23, 2008 5:03:15 AM

bobbknight said:
Well if you really want fast go with 2 SAS 15K drives at 300GB each in a raid 0


I would, but two would cost way too much for an HDD, and 1 has too little memory.
a b G Storage
September 23, 2008 5:05:28 AM

If you are intending to use the MoBo RAID controller, it'll depend on which MoBo and processor you are using.
a b G Storage
September 23, 2008 5:45:39 AM

The performance of a single velociraptor is about the same as two of the older raptors in raid 0. The velociraptor is hands down the better choice. The smaller platters move data much faster then the larger platters of the older drives. plus the run alot cooler and quieter.
September 23, 2008 1:45:13 PM

PsyKhiqZero is absolutely right on the dime with the advice. I started out for the past three and a half years with two 74 BG raptors in RAID 0. At 0GB the raptors did 122 mbps and at 148 GB they did 79 mbps. I initially replaced the two in RAID 0 with one 300 GB Velociraptor...at 0GB the drive did 132 mbps and at 300GB it did 81 mbps. It is true...the ONE Velociraptor is equal in performance to the two older drives in RAID 0. Now...just recently, I added another VelociRaptor and again back to RAID 0. At 0GB, the drives do 250 mbps and at 600 GB, the drives are still doing 152 mbps. The newer drives are incredibly fast and worth the money, if you have it. A single VelociRaptor cost between $279-$300. Two SAS 15 K drives will cost you your arm, leg and firstborn. Go with the 300 GB...I can't see how you could go wrong. Performance wise...it is right there with SAS drives

Bob
September 23, 2008 1:55:25 PM

+1 For answering the original question the OP had instead of trying to sell him something he isn't interested in..+1 to you.
September 23, 2008 2:05:32 PM

+1 for PsyKhiqZero & bobmitch's advice.

There is a lot more to consider when it comes to a drive's speed than RPM alone. Hard drive technology has been advancing just like all other computer tech. The new drives have new recording technologies, are more dense, and in the case of the Velociraptor, is a smaller form factor allowing the drive to access data very quickly.

If I remember correctly, the last HD chart I read showed the 7200 RPM WD 6400AAKS drive beating the old Raptor's in almost every benchmark.
September 23, 2008 2:36:08 PM

one-shot said:
+1 For answering the original question the OP had instead of trying to sell him something he isn't interested in..+1 to you.


Yea, thanks! Most threads I make people just make fun of my $1500 gpu setup, or dont answer my question, or simply stuff a product down my throat :( 
September 23, 2008 3:02:36 PM

People don't do it because they are mean, they do it because they have a point and most likely know a thing or two.

In this case, if you can't afford two SAS 15K rpm drives in RAID 0 then go for a single 300gb velociraptor, after that in speed comes the WD 6400AAKS (very cheap and huge too). You shouldn't have to buy the old raptors in any situation, as they are smaller, more expensive and slower than the 640gb Western Digital. I don't know how two of the 640's would perform in RAID 0 compared to a velociraptor though.
September 23, 2008 3:57:21 PM

I can understand what you're saying Icyicy, but the difference in price from what he was first looking at to the SAS drives is huge. You wouldn't recommend a QX9650 to someone looking for a Q6600. That's all I'm saying. I've seen lots of posts where someone has a question based on what they want and can afford then people offer something way out of their budget/wants/needs.
!