Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

300 GB V 2 X 150 GB Velociraptor

Last response: in Storage
Share
January 24, 2009 1:55:49 AM

In another of my threads I was asking about spending £250 to upgrade my system.

Q9450 running at 2.66GHZ
4 x 1 GB DDR2 RAM
Asus Maximus Formula
Corsair 620 Watt PSU
160GB 7200 Hitachi HDD
8800 GTS (G92)
Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit
Low end case

Anyway since I have a reasonable system the only things I went cheap on was the hard drive and case. Since my Q9450 is running very hot I don't think I will be able to overclock even with good airflow anyway so there is really no need to upgrade my case in a hurry. I thought I would upgrade the hard drives. The hard drives I have now is a 160 GB Hitachi for OS and programs and a 500 GB Samsung for back up. I do have a issue where my PC freezes for a second and then I hear a loud click from one of the hard drives and everything is ok again. I guess that one of the hard drives is failing. I have not checked to see which one it is yet though.

Anyway I have seen the 300 GB Western Digital Velociraptor for £240 but the 150 GB is only £150. So would it not be a better idea to RAID 0 the 150s for £300?

More about : 300 150 velociraptor

January 26, 2009 1:54:26 AM

Can no one help me? I have done some more research since and found out about the problems with MLC SSDs so they are out of the question. The Intel ones seem good but cost way too much.
a b G Storage
January 26, 2009 5:14:05 AM

The benefits of raid 0 are largely transparent. So unless your sure the applications your using will benefit from a RAID 0, I would suggest you go with a single Velociraptor 300GB.
Related resources
January 26, 2009 5:38:58 AM

Thanks for the reply. I play alot of games. So would they not load the game and textures in faster with RAID 0?
a b G Storage
January 26, 2009 10:25:32 AM

Man, the reason no one will help is because this question has been asked and argued, and answered to death...literally hundreds of times.
I believe this question is second only to "Windows won't detect all 4 gig of my memory"
a b G Storage
January 26, 2009 10:43:47 AM

ok the minimum performance spec of a system is the HDD - even an older processors FSB can transfer ~3200mb/s, and hdds can barely do 80mb/s etc, so it will help performance (loading times, file transfers etc) yes, but it WILL NOT gain any FPS in games, and anything else like that.

I use raid 0 in all my rigs and wont live without it (my RAID 0 setups probably will perform the same as your high end drive in most benchmarks) but for you, thats up to you.

If your going SSD stick to Intel.
January 26, 2009 1:08:01 PM

I run 4 30G OCZ SSDs. If you can read and follow the directions how to set them up, they will give you wet dreams. If not set up right they will give you nightmares. It takes about 5 minutes to set them up.

Hers my thread with some benches.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/258117-31-roadrunners


I do alot of 5-50GB video files conversions and unzipping, and it only takes seconds to unzip with winrar.

To convert and burn a 700MB .avi to DvD it takes 13 minutes. "Partly because of the rest of my system"

Also when I play games I am always the first to load the new lvl or zone.

Installing apps is so fast if you blink you will miss it.
a b G Storage
January 26, 2009 5:13:47 PM

games show little improvement in load times with raid. Hardly worth the hassle of a raid 0. Get a single velociraptor or a good 1tb drive or save for a solid state. If your are performing many simutameuos read and writes then go raid 0. I could be wrong but I hear that solid states have problems there.
January 26, 2009 5:15:59 PM

RAID0 has a higher risk factor than just a single drive, that is something to consider. Personally I'd stick with single VR300.
January 26, 2009 6:19:40 PM

I had 2 x 150gbs in my system until I had a problem and swapped them for 300 gb and don't really notice any difference.I doubt you will see a change apart from maybe slightly faster load times for online games like COD 4 with raid 0.
January 26, 2009 7:15:16 PM

Raid 0 is significantly faster at load times for every app including games. Idiots that say other wise have no idea or possibly they raided 2 crappy drives @ 50MB/s together and only got 100MB/s.

One you get over 300MB/s you notice the difference like night and day.

Then you get the idiots crying that raid 0 has a higher risk factor then a single drive. Well every drive has a certain lifespan, so no matter if you have one, or you have 2 in raid 0, either way if it dies your screwed. These people that claim this must not have ever heard of backups?

If people are so paranoid back it up or run a mirror raid. You should do backups any how, so why not raid 0 and get the extra performance?
a b G Storage
January 26, 2009 9:34:38 PM

This one's from Mr. Sherman and the "Way Back Machine":

Save your money and install your OS on a single 150GB VR:
partition 30-50GB for the OS and the rest for data e.g. D:+

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Then, bulk up on RAM and consider moving frequently used
data files to a ramdisk using RamDisk Plus from
www.superspeed.com :

http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php

We've moved the browser caches for IE7, Firefox and Opera
to ramdisks, and the results have been spectacular
(because we access the Internet quite frequently).

DDR2-800 has a raw bandwidth of 6.4 GIGABYTES per second:
fastest 15,000 rpm SAS HDDs are just now approaching 150 MB/sec.

Thus, DDR2-800 is (6400/150) > 40 TIMES faster than a fast HDD.

The latest version also utilizes unmanaged Windows RAM
even with XP x32. So, you could migrate to a P45 chipset and
order the whole enchilada: 16GB of DDR2-800

Or, some Core i7 / X58 motherboards now support 24GB of DDR3,
which is consistently showing raw bandwidth of 25,000 MB/sec
(25 GB/sec).

When you get a ramdisk configured, run a benchmark
to measure the "raw read" speed: you'll be astounded
(I predict).


MRFS
a b G Storage
January 26, 2009 10:20:59 PM

Quote:
Raid 0 is significantly faster at load times for every app including games. Idiots that say other wise have no idea or possibly they raided 2 crappy drives @ 50MB/s together and only got 100MB/s.


It is faster, but it won't help much with games. There is harddrive activity loading a game/level, but there is also a lot of CPU work as well. Doubling your read speed won't cut your load time down in half. Getting a faster CPU can help make the most of your drives however. I wanted to get data on this, but I didn't. Using my old drives, I noticed a huge drop in load time for TF2. I went from a single core 3500+ to an E6600. (both were stock.) The drive in question is a 250GB Seagate 7200.10 drive. Again, I don't have old vs new load times, but its a LOT shorter, even with the "old" drive. I don't always load first, but I do now get to chose which side to play, and have to wait for people.

Quote:
Then you get the idiots crying that raid 0 has a higher risk factor then a single drive. Well every drive has a certain lifespan, so no matter if you have one, or you have 2 in raid 0, either way if it dies your screwed.


This is true as well, but adding in raid complicates other things as well. If your RAID driver gets corrupted, you have to redo everything. This (almost?) never happens with single drives, AFAIK. You'd have to be an idiot to think that you can increase the complexity of something and not have any increase risk of failure.

Quote:
If people are so paranoid back it up or run a mirror raid. You should do backups any how, so why not raid 0 and get the extra performance?


Thats actually why I'm writing this. Some people post their build, and they've cut back on things that matter more. You shouldn't get an 8800GT instead of the 9800GTX just so you have enough money to get that second drive. You shouldn't buy the E7200 over the Q6600 for the same reason. RAID1 or AID0 can be nice, but don't do it over things that matter more. This doesn't apply in the OPs case, but to sing the "praises" of RAID without touching this subject isn't right. RAID can be good, but you need lots of disk access to make it worth while. I don't believe gaming is enough, while RR197069 believes it does.

OP, rather then getting RAID installed, I would see about fixing your temp problem first. Your cheap case might be a part of that problem. Getting a nicer case with better cooling would help. Installing 120mm case fans can help as well. A nice looking case with large (quiet) fans will not only drop the temp of your chip, but might allow for a better overclock as well.
a b G Storage
January 27, 2009 12:56:41 AM

well said 4738383b. windows vista ultimate has a fantastic imaging tool. If you go raid USE IT!!! as soon as you get your pc setup the way you want and activited. (windows and any other programs that need internet activation.) In the even of a failure this will make recovery a piece of cake. I've only had to recover my system twice in 3 years as a result of a RAID 0 failure.
January 27, 2009 1:43:19 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
I run 4 30G OCZ SSDs. If you can read and follow the directions how to set them up, they will give you wet dreams. If not set up right they will give you nightmares. It takes about 5 minutes to set them up.

Hers my thread with some benches.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/258117-31-roadrunners


I do alot of 5-50GB video files conversions and unzipping, and it only takes seconds to unzip with winrar.

To convert and burn a 700MB .avi to DvD it takes 13 minutes. "Partly because of the rest of my system"

Also when I play games I am always the first to load the new lvl or zone.

Installing apps is so fast if you blink you will miss it.


Why do you keep showing off what you have dude. The guy obviously doesnt have 3000$ to put in his hard drives. So stick with the subject or don't post.
January 27, 2009 1:56:12 AM

Huttfuzz said:
Why do you keep showing off what you have dude. The guy obviously doesnt have 3000$ to put in his hard drives. So stick with the subject or don't post.





Retard. They cost $280. Who asked you. It must suck to be a jealous hater such as yourself. Have fun on your XPS, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :kaola: 
January 27, 2009 3:08:14 AM

Thanks for all the help guys. I have decided to order 1 X 150 Western Digital Velociraptor for now and maybe add another one in the future for RAID 0. With benchmarking software the HDD I have now gets an average of 59.8 MB/S with a access time of 13.7ms so even one Velociraptor will speed things up a bit.

Although thats not to rule SSD out (I'm up and down with SSD, don't know what to think). Maybe I could get one for just my O/S and use the Western Digital Velociraptor for programs or would it be better the other way around? From more reading around about the MLC SSD problem some people say they are not getting the pause issue with some OCZ SSD. Can't remember which one off the top of my head though.
January 27, 2009 5:31:14 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
Retard. They cost $280. Who asked you. It must suck to be a jealous hater such as yourself. Have fun on your XPS, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :kaola: 


Even at 280 they are 4 times his budget. You're a really special person roadrunner.
January 27, 2009 1:04:22 PM

Huttfuzz said:
Even at 280 they are 4 times his budget. You're a really special person roadrunner.



4x the budget huh? So the budget went from considering a 300G Velociraptor down to $70?

You make your self look dumber with every post.


In the first question it was an option to get a Velociraptor 300, which cost $229 USD. Wow, $50 more for 5x the performance on thhe SSDs.

110MB/s transfers vs 507MB/s transfers. you need to go back to first grade math class.

Don't be hating because my setup is 100x better then your Dell XPS and you paid more money then me. :) 

You might be qualified to run your mouth if you ever built your own PC.

I bet those Hard drives of yous are soooooo fast huh?
January 27, 2009 4:09:24 PM

I think Huttfuzz thinks the drives are $280 each Roadrunner.
January 27, 2009 5:11:21 PM

You're talking about 4 drives roadrunner. so 4 times 280. 1 drive is pointless. Yes it's fast but 30 GB is not enough for OS and all the apps.

Plus i paid my Dell 800$ since my step brother works there. At that price point it was a very good deal. I changed the MB and it's perfect like that. I don't know why you must hate every single person that don't have 4 SSD and a corei7. Anyway you must be such a nice guy.
January 27, 2009 5:16:19 PM

Ok my mistake i tought you were talking about 4 Intel SSD.
January 27, 2009 7:16:54 PM

Huttfuzz said:
Ok my mistake i tought you were talking about 4 Intel SSD.




You know what I was talking about. Your the one complaining about me showing off. I have 4 30G OCZ drives. They cost $70x4 = $280.
January 28, 2009 1:26:18 AM

4745454b said:
You'd have to be an idiot to think that you can increase the complexity of something and not have any increase risk of failure.

Thank you for saying it, having someone else agree with me give my point more validity.
And roadrunner, calm down and stop insulting people. Are you going to mock me because I'm running a P4?
January 28, 2009 1:42:56 AM

Whatt!!!!?? A P4!!!! You must be so poor dude!!!! (rings a bell?)
January 28, 2009 3:47:08 AM

Poor. Hardly, I just have more important things to spend my money on (you'll understand when you own a house and are planning a wedding with your fiance).

Edit: I know what you're saying, though, and sadly, that is the sentiment of a fair number of people around here.
January 28, 2009 4:09:17 AM

Dude, congradulations, i'm actually planning my wedding too! hehe
January 28, 2009 4:25:57 PM

Congrats to you too. We're planning for May 2010, since my brother is getting married this fall, so we're in the very early stages of planning.
January 29, 2009 1:18:47 AM

Congratulations to both of you!

My HDD should be here today (Or tomorrow). I was planning on backing up my files to my 500GB HDD and formatting my 160GB (My current bootdrive). With World of Warcraft can I just copy the files over to my new HDD or do I have to reinstall it? I don't mind waiting for it all but I don't want to download the patch again as it is quite big.

Also this may be a stupid question but when you copy from HDD to HDD Vista will error check all the data thats being copied right?
February 3, 2009 1:28:28 AM

Why do some people think they have to show off on here? :)  Reason I don't spend too much time here.

Thanks for the info, most of you and great stuff, 4745454b... I'm looking at similar things. I Have 2 older 320's in RAID0 that I've put off on upgrading for everything else. I was looking at possibly 2x300 VR's but I think I'm going to just grab 1 300 VR for my system and game drive. I really don't need a lot of disc space (reason I only have the 2x320's) since I have a second PC that I use for storage.

Oh and congrats to those getting married! Sounds a million times better than having the absolute latest and greatest and living in your mothers basement!! :kaola: 
!