WD Raptor Hard Drive
- Thread starter markallen
- Start date
SubDude199
Member
we will definatly need more specs on that drive to compare it to a raptor. but no mater what drive it is. there is about a 80% chance that a raptor will be faster. I just upgraded from a old segate 150 to two raptors in raid0.. completly blew my mind.. I could not believe how much a slow hard drive slowed down my computer.
Which raptors are you running?I am running the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard drive.
whatuusay1
New Member
New Western Digital 640GB HD (Comparable to Raptor)
I've been reading about the new WD6400AAKS hard drives. From what I can tell it's suposed to be a very fast hard drive (like the raptor line) with 640GB storage. I'd go with one of them over a raptor - the speed is essentially as fast as a raptor - plus 640GB of space. They're not too pricey - New Egg has then for $129.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136218
I've been reading about the new WD6400AAKS hard drives. From what I can tell it's suposed to be a very fast hard drive (like the raptor line) with 640GB storage. I'd go with one of them over a raptor - the speed is essentially as fast as a raptor - plus 640GB of space. They're not too pricey - New Egg has then for $129.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136218
SubDude199
Member
I was using one Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 ST3160811AS 160GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive. It was slow as poo. I then switched to WD260 (yes the old raptors) and setup a raid0. now its silly fast. I just ordered some of the new raptors so Im sure it will get even faster.
the specs on these raptors are not amazing:
Seek time 5.2 ms
Cache memory 8 MB
Capacity 36.7 GB
The raptiors I just ordered should be a bit faster:
WD360ADFD
Capacity 36GB
RPM 10,000 RPM
Cache 16MB
Average Seek Time 4.6ms
Average Latency 2.99ms
the specs on these raptors are not amazing:
Seek time 5.2 ms
Cache memory 8 MB
Capacity 36.7 GB
The raptiors I just ordered should be a bit faster:
WD360ADFD
Capacity 36GB
RPM 10,000 RPM
Cache 16MB
Average Seek Time 4.6ms
Average Latency 2.99ms
Last edited:
That drive is not "essentially as fast as a Raptor." It's a common 7200 RPM drive. The only difference is the amount of storage.
So are you saying the 640 gig WD is a fast as a raptor?
whatuusay1
New Member
The 640 GB drive is not a common 7200 drive - it has sustained read/write speeds as fast or faster than a 10k raptor..
Last edited:
No, I'm saying it's slower.
What are the average seek and write times for this drive? What's the average latency? Can you provide some read/write benchmarks?
whatuusay1
New Member
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1032142298 had these results:
Transfer Rate:
Min: 48.5 MB/s
Max: 118.2 MB/s
Avg: 89.2 MB/s
Access Time: 12.8ms
Burst Rate: 139.1 MB/s
CPU Usage: 1.2%
I dont have any experience myself - just what I've read. It looks pretty good, just not sure if anyone here had any personal experience.
Transfer Rate:
Min: 48.5 MB/s
Max: 118.2 MB/s
Avg: 89.2 MB/s
Access Time: 12.8ms
Burst Rate: 139.1 MB/s
CPU Usage: 1.2%
I dont have any experience myself - just what I've read. It looks pretty good, just not sure if anyone here had any personal experience.
First, most of the members of Hardforums are losers, idiots, fanboys, wankers and wannabes.
Second, Anand is also a loser producing world class crap, sold-out advertisements masquerading as "reviews". Losers citing losers citing synthetic benchmarks. Surprising? Not really.
If you want genuine results that actually mean something, Storage Review is probably the web's leading authority on harddrives.
You can check their leaderboard here:
http://www.storagereview.com/leaderboard.sr
Second, Anand is also a loser producing world class crap, sold-out advertisements masquerading as "reviews". Losers citing losers citing synthetic benchmarks. Surprising? Not really.
If you want genuine results that actually mean something, Storage Review is probably the web's leading authority on harddrives.
You can check their leaderboard here:
http://www.storagereview.com/leaderboard.sr
Way to stereotype..."if you go to this certain URL on the internet, and belong to their "community" then you're a loser" that's pretty much the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. As for Anand...well I'm not sure I've only been there a few times...seems like a reputable site though.
Just my thoughts...
No probs. Storage Review is an amazing site. Full of hard drive knowledge. Really they're the standard to which one can measure up any other drive review.
INTELCRAZY
banned
I would say don't... You can spend the money on something better like going for 4Gb RAM if you have Vista and game.
Of course the Raptor is faster by stats and specs but, it's barely noticeable and only increases load times and only by a couple seconds. So if you can justify spending $150 for 2 seconds, go ahead.
And SirKenin, is this forum or are some of the other ones so different at times?
*/Thread should end here\*
I think with the Raptor that one shouldn't focus so much on the speed, although that is a small advantage. Really the biggest selling point of the Raptor is it's reliability and durability. It's an enterprise class drive that can take a serious beating and keep going. The duty cycle and MTBF totally destroys the Caviar SE lineup. If data integrity is important to you, the Raptor may very well be the only serious contender in the WD lineup.
INTELCRAZY
banned
I guess that's why Newegg uses "Reliability" instead of "RPM" for categorization
None of that is real^ and they do use RPM...
First, Newegg isn't really qualified to rank them according to reliability.
Second, RPM is an easy categorization to make, and one that is very easily quantified.
Third, it wouldn't be to Newegg's advantage to rank a product according to reliability. Newegg is about moving volume. Sales numbers. Ranking a product as "unreliable" not only isn't their business, it's not advantageous to the bottom line either.
Second, RPM is an easy categorization to make, and one that is very easily quantified.
Third, it wouldn't be to Newegg's advantage to rank a product according to reliability. Newegg is about moving volume. Sales numbers. Ranking a product as "unreliable" not only isn't their business, it's not advantageous to the bottom line either.
