Is a VelociRaptor worth the extra money?

[thebski]

Just as the title states. Does the speed added by a VelociRaptor warrant the additional cost over a 7200 RPM drive? I'm looking to upgrade to Win 7, and I only have one hard drive in my PC right now and want to add a more high performance drive for the OS drive. I'd obviously love to go SSD, but right now I just can't convince myself that the $/GB makes any sense.

Is the Raptor a good step between HDD and SSD, or are todays 7200 RPM drives almost just as good?

 

[cjl]

Honestly, I think a velociraptor is worth it. It can't hold a candle to an SSD, but the performance difference between it and a normal 7200 is noticeable. I just got an X25-M, which is awesome, but 80GB isn't nearly big enough for all my games and apps, so I'm keeping my old boot and application setup (2x300GB Vraptors in RAID 0) to use as a program drive. They definitely are great drives (quiet and cool too).

 

[sub mesa]

I'd say the Velociraptors are indeed a good step between HDD and SSD, if you can't afford having all your installed apps on an SSD.

300GB is alot of space compared to 80GB, and should fit alot more games/apps than an affordable SSD.

Make no mistake though, SSDs are alot faster than HDDs in some cases, especially loading applications and booting so SSDs are really most ideal as a system drive. But a Velociraptor is a decent compromise.

 

[Rock_n_Rolla]

Velocity Raptor is the way to go, but if you cant afford it and if you want more space,
then i suggest buy the Western Digital 640GB 32MB cache Caviar Black series hard
drive. It is one of the most fastest, very reliable 7,200 rpm hard drive available
today. Having two of these on a RAID 0 config, is like having an SSD with
very fast seek, copy, loading and caching times that you could really notice.

 

[thebski]

Alright, thanks guys. I'm leaning toward a 300GB VelociRaptor then. I would obviously love to go SSD, and I know the Raptor won't be close to an SSD. I have had myself convinced on more than one occasion to penny up and just buy an 80GB Intel SSD. When I really think about it though, 80 GB is no where near enough. I'd have to have all my programs and OS on there and only have a couple games at a time to make it work. I'd rather not be installing and uninstalling games all the time to stay under the 74GB size.

I guess I'll buy the Raptor and hope that in a couple years you can pick up a 160 or 256 GB SSD for 300 or less. I just can't justify spending 500+ on a sufficient sized SSD right now. Thanks for the help!

 

[sminlal]

I just can't convince myself that the $/GB makes any sense.

The $/GB is a reflection of the performance difference. Compared to a conventional 7200RPM drive, SSDs have probably around a 30 - 50 times higher cost in terms of $/GB, but they also have a 100 times faster access time. That's a better performance "bargain" than a VelociRaptor which may have a 3-5X premium in $/GB but only provides perhaps a 1.5 to 2X improvement in access time.

The figures I used are guesstimates, but they're certainly in the ball park. And I'm comparing access times, not transfer rates, so the performance improvements of an SSD aren't as dramatic as I've made them look. But my point is that for the most part you get what you pay for in terms of performance, and really it's only you who can decide how much performance you need vs. what you're willing to pay. Everyone's different.

 

[chedderslam1976]

the Western Digital 640GB 32MB cache Caviar Black are faster than the velociraptors.

 

[sminlal]

the Western Digital 640GB 32MB cache Caviar Black are faster than the velociraptors.

Perhaps for transfer rate, but not for access time which is what's more important for a typical OS/boot drive.

 

[cjl]

the Western Digital 640GB 32MB cache Caviar Black are faster than the velociraptors.

Nope. They're slightly slower on sequential transfer rate, and miles behind on random.