Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

VelociRaptor Returns: 6Gb/s, 600GB, And 10,000 RPM

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
April 6, 2010 6:20:22 AM

I was hoping for a much more balanced price considering the SSD penetration today, alas WD decided that it is a premium product - again...
I will stick with my VR150, SSD and Spinpoint F3...
To entice me to get one of those drives they would have to bring the price down by at least $90.
Sorry WD, too little too late...
Score
18
April 6, 2010 6:24:35 AM

Is there really a market for this product anymore? People that want performance can get an Intel SSD for less (even 2 or 3 of them if they're on sale). If people need more space, large capacity drives are cheaper and the performance isn't bad. This middle ground seems unnecessary, but I guess that's why its the only drive in its class (and was unchanged for so long).
Score
-9
Related resources
April 6, 2010 6:28:56 AM

Nice article, but was their enough reason for 2 drive surface temp graphs? one in fahrenheit and one in celsius? And id rather get a cheaper intel or kingstone (mindblank..?) SSD over a raptor any day, at least you can get 150GB more room with only extra 30$, something SSDs dont yet offer xD
Score
-16
April 6, 2010 6:30:44 AM

The review of the VelociRaptor is nice, but what I really appreciate are the benchmarks of the high-capacity (1TB and greater) 3.5" drives bundled in with this review. This is what I have been trying to find for a while. Thanks!
Score
23
April 6, 2010 6:58:42 AM

I run two VR160s in RAID0 and only spent $200 total for them. The new VRs look nice, but I'm not paying that much unless it's an SSD. Then again, I can't see moving to an SSD until the prices come down. So I'll just have to be happy with what I have.
Score
-3
April 6, 2010 7:04:23 AM

This VR should be a 300GB. There's no point in the high capacity when most of the times this drive will be used in a SO or games. For space and average 2TB drive is enough.

Let the dinosaur be extinct.
Score
0
Anonymous
April 6, 2010 7:38:26 AM

Question: Is there really a market for this product anymore?

Answer: Yes. My company just bought a 100 nodes cluster - each node has five 7200 rpm 2.5" disks (unsure of the exact brand and so). That's 500 disks. Yes, there is a huge market for these kinds of disks. 2.5 inch disks fit nicely in a two nodes/2U rack form factor. It's not necessarily meant for gamers and such. The IcePack version is there to gain a little market share in the gamer/home user segment, who would probably be better off using a SSD as already mentioned. However, the "bare" version is probably what most companies are looking for. If your programs writes a couple of terabytes to the scratch disk back and forth all the time, SSD is not viable, because it doesn't offer enough disk space for the money at the moment.

Best!
Score
19
April 6, 2010 7:41:22 AM

Yeah what everyone else said. 450 gigs for $300 are you out of your mind? Maybe if it was like 160 gigs for $150 then maybe. The drives going over the $200 mark no matter what the capacity will turn-off consumers regardless. SSD are here to stay why would someone want to take a step backwards?
Score
-1
April 6, 2010 7:54:21 AM

Still sticking with ssd... I'm yet to have one fail on me and i own 7 of them... Who can tell how reliable these would be?
Score
-5
April 6, 2010 8:06:47 AM

Not a premium product anymore. I would get an ssd as my boot drive, say 60gb and put some cheap 1tb 7200 rpm drives in raid-0 as my storage base if i needed fast.


my current seagate 7200 1tb HDs in raid-0 as my main drive works just fine for me
Score
-1
April 6, 2010 8:09:06 AM

What speed does 6Gb/s indicates?
Score
-8
April 6, 2010 8:10:21 AM

They made a better drive, but they totally failed in the pricing department. These can't compete in the current market.
Score
6
April 6, 2010 8:10:47 AM

indicate*
Score
-9
April 6, 2010 8:36:35 AM

god, too expensive. thought, theycould be cheaper considering SSDs and 2TB drives available. additionally, the streaming and sequential scores are not far from 2TB drives.
Score
-4
April 6, 2010 9:24:58 AM

reminds me a bit of the new nvidia cards....

too little, too late, for too much
Score
5
April 6, 2010 9:36:59 AM

Curnel_DThey made a better drive, but they totally failed in the pricing department. These can't compete in the current market.

I agree and i was hoping this drive would be some sort of a hybrid between an SSD and classical HDD. That would have justified the pricing.
Score
0
April 6, 2010 9:50:42 AM

SpadeMI agree and i was hoping this drive would be some sort of a hybrid between an SSD and classical HDD. That would have justified the pricing.

The thing is, this is the same format that the original Vraptors were, so it goes without saying that manufacturing costs aren't high enough to justify the price they're trying to push.

But you're totally right. They'd have a killer product if this was priced reasonably or if they had managed some sort of hybrid technology.
Score
1
April 6, 2010 9:54:10 AM

I guess people don't understand this intended to be a niche product.

No device out there is faster, and more capacious at near the same price. So, if you want this balance, and don't want an SSD which can only tolerate so many writes before it fails, then this will do well for you. It's not for everyone, it never has been. But, it's very fast for a magnetic disk, and if you don't want the compromises of an SSD, it's as good as it gets even at $300. Most people won't want it, but it will have it's small market, which is all niche products aim for. And it's better than its predecessor and everything out there at what it is. That's not bad.
Score
17
April 6, 2010 10:08:47 AM

I agree they need to come down on the pricing quite a bit, but this fills the gap very nicely:

SSD = OS and Swap
This = Games/Heavy HDD apps
2 TB = Everything Else
Score
10
April 6, 2010 10:20:14 AM

TA152HI guess people don't understand this intended to be a niche product. No device out there is faster, and more capacious at near the same price. So, if you want this balance, and don't want an SSD which can only tolerate so many writes before it fails, then this will do well for you. It's not for everyone, it never has been. But, it's very fast for a magnetic disk, and if you don't want the compromises of an SSD, it's as good as it gets even at $300. Most people won't want it, but it will have it's small market, which is all niche products aim for. And it's better than its predecessor and everything out there at what it is. That's not bad.

I can take 2 640gb drives, raid them, and have more space, more performance, and fall almost near half the price.

It's a niche product, but it's also competing with many other products in the same niche market. And it's clear that it's not going to do very well.
Score
-6
April 6, 2010 10:49:34 AM

pojihreminds me a bit of the new nvidia cards....too little, too late, for too much


I definitely don't agree with you. Why? This is best stated by andersx:

andersxQuestion: Is there really a market for this product anymore?Answer: Yes. My company just bought a 100 nodes cluster - each node has five 7200 rpm 2.5" disks (unsure of the exact brand and so). That's 500 disks. Yes, there is a huge market for these kinds of disks. 2.5 inch disks fit nicely in a two nodes/2U rack form factor. It's not necessarily meant for gamers and such. The IcePack version is there to gain a little market share in the gamer/home user segment, who would probably be better off using a SSD as already mentioned. However, the "bare" version is probably what most companies are looking for. If your programs writes a couple of terabytes to the scratch disk back and forth all the time, SSD is not viable, because it doesn't offer enough disk space for the money at the moment.Best!

Score
0
April 6, 2010 10:59:34 AM

NintendorkThis VR should be a 300GB. There's no point in the high capacity when most of the times this drive will be used in a SO or games. For space and average 2TB drive is enough.Let the dinosaur be extinct.


They've had a 300GB version and it's even mentioned in the article.

I've personally owned the original velociraptor 30GB 10k rpm and have the 300GB as well. The 30GB (I've had for what...7+ years?) - even with my other components surpasing it's function - still works. Alas, I put it to rest since 30GB is fairly useless by today's standards.

At the time I purchased the 300GB (around a year ago), the many reviews and comparisons I validated its capability with showed that it could hold its ground against some SSDs for the price.

Now, however, this 600GB version isn't validated. SSD is constantly coming down in price and improving in performance. Unfortunately the day of the HDD is gone. I'll probably still use mine for many years since they're so reliable, but my next purchase will more than likely be a SSD.

Western-Digital, you're truly amazing for your products. Get into SSD and show the market what you're really made of!

(Am I a fanboi? Hell yes I am. The quality of their products is unrivaled. A friend once took a 12 lb. magnet to his old WD drive and no data was lost or corrupted on it. That along with the life and integrity I've personally seen from them are well-earned trophies for this company in my book.)
Score
1
April 6, 2010 11:45:41 AM

WD you should try making a hybrid HD-SSD. A 16GB portion could be used by all for fast game loading to db key caching. A small part of the SSD could be used to replace the HD's cache remove a costly part. The drive would then truly have a shot at being the fastest storage drive again.
Score
-1
April 6, 2010 12:08:50 PM

Too much money for little gain... Mostly on boot-up time?

The huge file transfer are use with the raid base Terabyte size drives. Not from the c:\ drive which mostly contain system files.

At $300 you get more performance on other stuff like video card. Or put on additional drives on your raid and you get better speed and capacity.


Score
-1
Anonymous
April 6, 2010 12:19:28 PM

Put it this way:

For $329 you could buy 3 very good 1TB drives, short stroke them down to 200GB each, put them in RAID0 and you'd get close to three times the performance for the same money and size.

I used to be a huge fan of VR drives before SSD's come along, but now I just don't see the point, with the exception of some limited enterprise applications.



Score
1
April 6, 2010 12:26:17 PM

For all you who think this drive is expensive - you're right. But why in the world would I spend even MORE for an SSD if I'm already maxed out on my budget? I have a NEED for at least 300gb of high speed storage. A puney 100gb SSD ain't gonna cut it. I'd have to spend about $700 to get the same storage space in an SSD. So that's why I'll probably end up getting this drive. OH yeah, and I don't want RAID either.
Score
-5
April 6, 2010 12:26:20 PM

For all you who think this drive is expensive - you're right. But why in the world would I spend even MORE for an SSD if I'm already maxed out on my budget? I have a NEED for at least 300gb of high speed storage. A puney 100gb SSD ain't gonna cut it. I'd have to spend about $700 to get the same storage space in an SSD. So that's why I'll probably end up getting this drive. OH yeah, and I don't want RAID either.
Score
-2
April 6, 2010 12:35:48 PM

Nice review, but in the temperatures charts, I would like to see how well the raptor behaves with and without it's cooling "case"... Just see if he "burns" or not. It would be interesting :) 

Anyway, great review :) 
Score
0
April 6, 2010 12:38:14 PM

Andersx has it right. The world is not made up of enthusiast-gamers. Corporations and government agencies will buy these, and probably a lot of them.
Score
5
April 6, 2010 12:55:07 PM

The SATA 6 Gbps part is a waste of time as it will only be that fast for the cache (32MB, was rumoured to be 64MB), I was hoping for faster RPM not stuck at 10k.

The last VRaptors also failed IMO (I bought them) because they did not include perpendicular recording which makes any HDD much faster and I have no clue why that late in the day they left it out.

This meant overall Sustained Speeds were not much higher than other high end 500+GB 7.2k RPM HDD's.

Also after dealing with WD's RMA (not for my Raptors) I will not buy their brand again.

The drive should have been at least 15k as hinted after last launch, 64MB cache, SATA 3 Gbps would have been suffice since no Motherboard has a proper integrated SATA 6 Gbps controller (i.e. Intel ICH) yet.

You can see on this very site apart from "Burst Rate" that the current Intel ICH beats out all these crappy bolted on so called SATA 6Gbps controllers for actual "Sustained Speeds".
Score
2
April 6, 2010 12:58:19 PM

jtt283Andersx has it right. The world is not made up of enthusiast-gamers. Corporations and government agencies will buy these, and probably a lot of them.

Sure, that's definitely true. But the raptor series has always been marketed towards gamers.

If they're entering the enterprise market, that's awesome. But entering it under a gaming trademark name is a waste of time.
Score
3
April 6, 2010 1:00:03 PM

They needed to release these in smaller capacities and at a much better price point. I would have liked to see a 200-300gb drive @ $99.99 for raid users. These would truly shine in a Raid 0 setting, but, at this price point, one would be better suited with a ssd OS drive and a pair of good hd's in raid 0 for storage and such.
Score
-1
April 6, 2010 1:06:30 PM

To above peep :

Quoted :

" VelociRaptor '2.0' drives come in 450GB and 600GB capacities (150GB and 300GB may come about too "
Score
-2
April 6, 2010 1:32:03 PM

"may come" isn't the same as "will come"
Score
-1
April 6, 2010 1:37:53 PM

I can understand the need for these drives, albeit a niche market. As a heavy gamer myself I have 18 games currently installed with plans in the near future for more purchases. Given that most games are between 6GB and 15GB once installed and once you add in the OS and other software installed, 300GB is just not large enough. So this new 600GB is a good mark.

However, I do have to admit that as I do not do any rendering, huge amounts of encoding or any other HDD intensive tasks, I personally would go for a 500GB or 1TB Samsung F1/F3.
Score
1
April 6, 2010 1:47:14 PM

If Im going to cough up $300+ for a hard drive it will be for a ssd. I think this is like many others have said: To little too late for the price, drop about $90-$100 and then it may be worth considering. These drive are great performers but when 2tb can be had for as little as $140 and the performance is not too far off its a hard sell for the raptor.
Score
0
April 6, 2010 2:02:35 PM

narlzac85Is there really a market for this product anymore? People that want performance can get an Intel SSD for less (even 2 or 3 of them if they're on sale). If people need more space, large capacity drives are cheaper and the performance isn't bad. This middle ground seems unnecessary, but I guess that's why its the only drive in its class (and was unchanged for so long).



I agree with you somewhat. For enterprise storage, hybrid storage pools is where it's at right now. The ability to use cheaper, larger, but slower 7200 RPM drives and combine them with fast SSDs or NVRAM storage to increase read/write performance; you see this coming to Adaptec HBAs and the functionality already native to ZFS through L2ARC and the the ZIL.
However, SSD's cannot yet match the price to performance ratio of traditional HDDs
Score
1
April 6, 2010 2:30:35 PM

This is very tempting. I can get an Intel 160GB SSD for ~$245 and this HDD is still very tempting. I think the large capacity of this drives outweighs the faster read speeds and slower write speeds of the Intel Drive.
Score
2
April 6, 2010 2:43:49 PM

I wonder if the new ones will be any more reliable then the 300G VR's. 2 out of 3 of my VR's have had to be replaced because of failure.
Score
-2
April 6, 2010 2:45:24 PM

How come they did not compare this to the original Raptor Drive?

i had 2 36GB 10000 Rpm Drives in a raid 0 for years....I picked up two more on eBay for 30 bucks each still under warranty and now have 4 36gb drives in a raid 0 setup and I'm really happy....the speed is incredible!

as for space...I have a freenas server with 4 2TB drives in raid 5 zfs on a gigabit network and i am maxing out bandwidth :) 
Score
0
April 6, 2010 3:12:41 PM

This drive will be a great storage drive for an ssd combo. my 300gb wd vraptor isnt quite big enough to hold all the stuff I have and if there's a 600gb version thats the same speed or faster its a win for me. I could also get a second wd vraptor 300 and raid0 them... Would be cheaper and probably just as fast as this drive. Decisions decisions...

Then as some others have said enterprise systems (though Id just use a 15krpm sas drive set). You cant get a 600gb 15k sas drive, but you can get a 300gb sas drive. This new wd raptor will give people an alternative for either more space or less drives in their servers (you can plug a sata drive into a sas controller but not the other way around) so win win for them too.
Score
-1
April 6, 2010 3:16:26 PM

:o  I want one, or two rather :D . I'll wait for the 600GB model to come down in price, and then look at getting one, or using two in RAID 0. One would be a significant speed upgrade over my current WD 1TB black.
Score
-1
Anonymous
April 6, 2010 3:18:32 PM

Running your OS and all your data under RAID is risky and a pain, realistically raids cost money and time and data recovery is an issue if your cutting costs. So twice the size of the SSD for practically half the price and comparable write performance is a bad deal? I value write speed, ease of setup and a better chance of data recovery (SSDs suck for that apparently). Having at least 3 drives for parity and performance is a pain.
I would buy one if I ever get around to not being broke and get a fab desktop.
Score
0
April 6, 2010 3:26:11 PM

"Update: After taking a look at Western Digital's final press release, it looks like the 450GB VelociRaptor will be priced at $299, while the 600GB model runs $329. Both price points are fairly lofty when you consider the 2TB Caviar Black at $279."
$329 for 600 only 30 dollars more than the 450? is that correct?
Score
-1
April 6, 2010 4:23:49 PM

Running your OS and all your data under RAID is risky and a pain

NO IT IS NOT!!!!!!

I use windows 7 backup and do a full image to my freenas box over gigabit.....takes about 10 minutes.....

i have all 5 of my windows 7 machines fully backed up....i do full backups once a month...

so i can run raid 0 to my hearts content!!!
Score
-1
April 6, 2010 4:47:09 PM

Both my VR 150 and VR 300 are collecting dust after I got me some SSDs and some Samsung F3s. The VR 600 is fast, but when you raid two F3s, you get fast and more space for about $100. The access times won't be as fast, but the write and read speed will be faster with raid. Still, you cant beat the access time of SSDs so I'm gonna have to say, these drives aren't worth the money for everyday users. If you have money to throw away, then go for it.
Score
0
Anonymous
April 6, 2010 5:06:32 PM

at danimal_the_animal
Dude. I don't want to setup a freenas box because I would have to build a machine specifically for that (gifted old tower away). Risky applies when you try to keep costs and space use down, obviously you can afford your set up and like it. Also power is unreliable here and I want to minimise power use as much as I can in the first place, an always on system for only me is not an option (I setup networked storage but only I use it at home cuz no one else can be bothered). So space money and power requirements as well as my unwillingness to set it up is my issue, I would like a good all round disk with a simple external (two at the moment) backup, the reason I am not using raid on my external is because the case I have only supports stripping not mirroring (software RAID was too slow and cumbersome and only worked properly for the setup machine) and I can replace and clone drives at my leisure (major bonus) and manually decide when and what to copy over.
Score
0
April 6, 2010 5:48:07 PM

I've had absolute part price limits that haven't changed for the past 10 years. For example, video cards, if listed over $299, don't even register in my mind: I don't desire it because I won't ever own it, because I refuse to pay 300+ for a video card. For HDDs, it's $199. I know the benefits of SSDs, because I've owned and built computers for others on them, but only on 64GB models. The next steps are 80/120/128, all over $200. I need at least a 120GB for my boot/app drive, but I refuse to pay over $200 for it. So, what I'm getting at is this: the new 300GB model NEEDS to be $199 or less if they want mindshare with a large mass of gamers. Intel and Kingston are already understanding the hard price limit with their value series. $199, Western Digital, remember that number.
Score
1
April 6, 2010 6:06:53 PM

I also wanted to say, the benefits of RAID0 are not lost on me. I wouldn't be willing to spend $400 on two drives, but if WD released the upcoming 150GB version at, say, $150 a piece, sans icepack, you could pop two of those in a one of Scythe's mounting kits, and be laughing with 300GB of storage space with 300MB/s of performance for $300 (how's that for 3/3/3, Gigabyte?)
Score
-1
!