Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,187
No more talk about pricing peeps, Adam has more than explained the reasoning & will do his best on behalf of OcUK customers to get that pricing down (as always!)
New Raptor Review
- Thread starter AWPC
- Start date
I'm sure the heat and noise at 15k would have been too excessive. If you want 15k go SAS.Was hoping for 15k and 32MB.
It's primarily a form factor convertor which is needed to mount the thing in desktop cases.
It must have if it's got 150GB 2.5" platters. A 2.5" platter has half the area of a 3.5" one which would give 300GB scaled up which is pretty near the cutting edge of 334GB per platter.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
1) It could have been 15k if 1 platter (less heat+noise+vibration/power used) and noise could be keep to a minimum with rubber joining HDD casing to the adapter (as I said before) and ribbed/finned casing for better cooling
2) No real comment, still looks crap.
3) I dont see anywhere claiming its got Perpendicular Recording, if it does use this Tech they would surely boast about it in specs.
Laptops had 300GB HDD before this tech AFAIK (they do not need only have 1 platter)
You DO realise this new Raptor has 2 Platters not 1 (thats to follow).
Tech has came on from the 1st 15k SCSI's.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 1,909
- Location
- Swansea Wales
I most certainly won't be. Too expensive, too little, too late.
My Sammy F1 F.T.W !
These drives are a lot faster than anything currently available.
I think they're worth the money, but i'm loathed to spend £250 on a hard drive (that's almost the price of a Q9450!).
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 57
If people read the reviews they will see the answer to most of their own questions.
The reason for the 16MB vs 32MB was that WD felt with their testing/profiling that they wasn't a justification for the increase in memory. So unless we have some harddrive designers in the house, maybe worth going with it. Though if I was a cynic you could say they are leaving up nice easy upgrade in the pipeline for the future.
They obviously felt the drive was sufficiently good enough for the current competition.
The reason for the 16MB vs 32MB was that WD felt with their testing/profiling that they wasn't a justification for the increase in memory. So unless we have some harddrive designers in the house, maybe worth going with it. Though if I was a cynic you could say they are leaving up nice easy upgrade in the pipeline for the future.
They obviously felt the drive was sufficiently good enough for the current competition.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 10,321
- Location
- Stoke
We've just confirmed the price with WD. Should be a bit happier with this one.
Price will update in the next 10-15 minutes.
Price will update in the next 10-15 minutes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 10,321
- Location
- Stoke
We will of course sort out customers who have pre-ordered already.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
I'll be getting two of these when the prices drop a little, although if I'm honest I'd rather have 2x 150gig drives because I don't even use more than 120gig on my current Raptor 74gig x2 array and combining two new drives would add up to 600gig which is far more than I need or use
2x 150gig models would be better (yes I know they exist now but they aren't anywhere near as good and certainly not any faster than what I already have)
2x 150gig models would be better (yes I know they exist now but they aren't anywhere near as good and certainly not any faster than what I already have)
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
THG is only site to say that, even WD's own site does not inc in the detailed specs, so lets hope its not a guess.
The drive is not that fast today over other 7.2K's (it does not do 120MB/Sec nor does a Raptor X do 88MB/Sec (does about 75MB/Sec), WD much quote Cache to Disk or such as its not Avg Sustained Speeds) and the fact a SSD is not that much more means I seriously wont buy one.
This came a bit too late IMO, it sohuld have been wehgat I said above, and the peep above saying WD said "bla bla" about 16MB over 32MB, that was about 7.2k drives weeks ago (some review I read), a 10k drive could benefit IMO.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
I'd do it as one big partition and have a seprate drive for files
Otherwise the when loading a game the head on the hard disk is having to race between the partition with the system files and page file and the partition with the game which slows it down.
Otherwise the when loading a game the head on the hard disk is having to race between the partition with the system files and page file and the partition with the game which slows it down.