New Raptor Review

helmutcheese · 3 May 2008 at 15:00

Pity the 16MB Raptors have issues in Vista (read THG) I had to use their fix.

Think I will talk to WD about the fact a HDD does not run correetly in a certain OS.

Breezy · 3 May 2008 at 15:24

shame WD are so slow on the uptake they could have made it faster by ditching the stupid heatsink making it a 3.5" drive and a single platter 320gb which would have made it cooler aswell. 2x 250gb seagate drives in raid are still quicker makes me laugh it really does.

helmutcheese · 3 May 2008 at 15:27

Breezy said:
shame WD are so slow on the uptake they could have made it faster by ditching the stupid heatsink making it a 3.5" drive and a single platter 320gb which would have made it cooler aswell. 2x 250gb seagate drives in raid are still quicker makes me laugh it really does.

They are doing a Single Platter model later. (states in 1 of the reviews)

How does 2 HDD's in Raid0 beating 1 HDD make you laugh ?. :confused:

helmutcheese · 3 May 2008 at 15:47

New review with newer Firmware.

QUOTED :

" We no longer have the optimization problem with the servo algorithm that resulted in slowdowns on the outer diameter of the platters. Minimum transfer rates increased from 8.8 MB/s to 73.9 MB/s while the average STR increased from 98.4 MB/s to 102.0 MB/s. Burst rates also increased from 163.7 MB/s to 184.5 MB/s. "

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3303

Tute · 3 May 2008 at 15:54

Breezy said:
2x 250gb seagate drives in raid are still quicker makes me laugh it really does.

No they're not.

Breezy · 3 May 2008 at 23:51

sorry i was comparing both 2 raptors in raid and 2 seagates in raid says in the first review 168.2mb/s for 2 raid raptors and 2 seagates are about the same (single platter version), even so the drives are £35 each so you could get almost 6 for the same price as 1 raptor.

Bomag · 4 May 2008 at 00:25

Burst rate has very little effect. The raptors wins on transfer speed and I/O.

helmutcheese · 4 May 2008 at 01:52

READ, the new review.

The new Firmware gives it gains throughout.

Did you not see the BIG WHITE sticker on the HDD with Engineers Sample on it ?.

Vertigo · 4 May 2008 at 09:28

Breezy said:
shame WD are so slow on the uptake they could have made it faster by ditching the stupid heatsink making it a 3.5" drive and a single platter 320gb which would have made it cooler aswell. 2x 250gb seagate drives in raid are still quicker makes me laugh it really does.

Yeah, because you know way more about making hard drives than WD do! :rolleyes:

These drives are all about access latency. A 3.5" drive would have higher latency due to the increased sweep of the heads. Also, two 7200rpm drives in RAID0 might provide more bandwidth but would still be caned by the Raptor when it comes to latency.

Breezy · 4 May 2008 at 11:05

Vertigo1 said:
Yeah, because you know way more about making hard drives than WD do!

These drives are all about access latency. A 3.5" drive would have higher latency due to the increased sweep of the heads. Also, two 7200rpm drives in RAID0 might provide more bandwidth but would still be caned by the Raptor when it comes to latency.

WATCH IT i was trying to make a discussion and no i wasnt saying i did know more aout making hard drives than WD but the old raptors had an access of around 8.0ms it would be better to loose 1ms and gain more mb/s from a bigger platter, if they say they are going to make a single platter drive later why not do it to start off with as the technology is there.

rpstewart · 4 May 2008 at 12:11

Breezy said:
making it a 3.5" drive and a single platter 320gb which would have made it cooler aswell.

It wouldn't be cooler with a single 3.5" platter.

The original Raptor (like all 10K+ rpm drives) uses a smaller platter (~2.5" diameter) to reduce the heat generated by a) air friction within the casing and b) the larger motor which would be required to spin a larger platter. The Velociraptor simply takes this a stage further by using the smaller form factor - expect to see WD release a version to compete with Seagate's Savvio SAS range shortly.

helmutcheese · 4 May 2008 at 14:24

The older Raptor has a normal size Platter, I can see it through the window and its same size as old HDD's I have with lids off.

Single platter will be cooler/quieter and less load on the Motor, WD have already stated there will be 1 of these (in 1 of the reviews).

@ Breezy, dont know where your getting your info but the new VelociRaptor seeks faster than the 16MB Raptor.

And remember now EVERY review apart from the NEW Anandtech one had the Original Firmware.

(I posted follow up review above).

rpstewart · 4 May 2008 at 14:35

helmutcheese said:
The older Raptor has a normal size Platter, I can see it through the window and its same size as old HDD's I have with lids of.

If you do some research you'll find it's smaller than normal.

helmutcheese · 4 May 2008 at 14:37

I cant do much more than look at it and take lid of normal HDD, Google gets me nothing on actual Dia of Platter.

You need do some homework also because it does not have 2.5" platters and a single platter HDD of the same Model has all the above mentioned benefits.

EDIT :

Ok Did a measurement of 2 HDD's (measure centre screw (exact centre) to outer edge as I can only see 1 side of the Raptor X's Platter due to the housing.

A normal buggered 3.5" HDD from the centre to outer edge is about 48mm, the Raptor X is about 43/44mm (very hard to gauge through the window even with a bright light as your not sitting ruler on platter but above it.

I know its not a 2.5" platter in there, I dont know if all 3.5" platters vary by a small amount as 3.5" has became the form factor probably not the exact size of a modern platter.

Breezy · 4 May 2008 at 14:39

helmutcheese said:
@ Breezy, dont know where your getting your info but the new VelociRaptor seeks faster than the 16MB Raptor.

i know it does i didnt say it didnt

rpstewart · 4 May 2008 at 14:46

helmutcheese said:
You need do some homework also because it does not have 2.5" platters and a single platter HDD of the same Model has all the above mentioned benefits.

I'll accept that they're not 2.5" diameter but they're still about 1/2 inch less than a normal HDD.

I'll also accept that a single platter version will be cooler. However that wasn't the question asked and my answer to that question still holds true.

helmutcheese · 4 May 2008 at 15:01

Breezy said:
i know it does i didnt say it didnt

I thought you were comparing old Raptor to new Raptor here :

Breezy said:
WATCH IT i was trying to make a discussion and no i wasnt saying i did know more aout making hard drives than WD but the old raptors had an access of around 8.0ms it would be better to loose 1ms and gain more mb/s from a bigger platter, if they say they are going to make a single platter drive later why not do it to start off with as the technology is there.

Craig321 · 4 May 2008 at 15:08

AWPC said:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/the_new_fastest_hard_drive_ever

SATA2, 300GB, 16MB cache.

Looks good, but I'd much rather go for a Samsung F1 500GB/750GB that's only slightly slower

Breezy · 4 May 2008 at 15:13

helmutcheese said:
I thought you were comparing old Raptor to new Raptor here :

no, new drive is 7.1ms old drive is 8.0ms give or take, the new drive has smaller platters meaning the access time is less, i was saying it would be better if they kept the platter size the same but with the new perpendicular tech it would be quicker as more data can be read off of the disc at once but access time would increase due to the bigger disc.

helmutcheese · 4 May 2008 at 15:13

Remember that review was slower as of original firmware.