Samsung SpinPoint vs Raptor X 150

Gunni Parker · 9 Apr 2008 at 17:11

I need an additional hardrive as I only have 74gb and it goes know where. I only do gaming and I was considering getting a another raptor as they are awesome. Although my Bro said that these are a good alternative, well cheaper and are as fast as the Raptor. Any views!

AbsenceJam · 9 Apr 2008 at 17:34

Only advantage of a Raptor is low access times which make a small difference to opening programs and boot times, a Samsung F1 or any other recent SATA2 (SATA 3Gb/s if you're a pedant) will have faster transfer rates so it will load most games a little bit quicker. And of course you'll also get: more space, less noise, less heat and less power consumption.

Green-Peace · 9 Apr 2008 at 18:15

AbsenceJam said:
Only advantage of a Raptor is low access times which make a small difference to opening programs and boot times, a Samsung F1 or any other recent SATA2 (SATA 3Gb/s if you're a pedant) will have faster transfer rates so it will load most games a little bit quicker. And of course you'll also get: more space, less noise, less heat and less power consumption.

Rubbish!!

Low RA makes a massive difference to the OS because it is constantly accessing very small files, hence why an OS running on a 15k U320 Drive or a SSD/iRAM flys and boots in a matter of a few seconds.
I would never go back to 7.2k for my OS & Program partitions and find it really annoying when I use other peoples computers as they feel really sluggish in comparison!!

GregI · 9 Apr 2008 at 19:32

I think its a matter of user experience. I want a raptor soon(74gb, 16mb cache one)........ anyone willing to sell?

PhillyDee · 9 Apr 2008 at 19:54

I would get the 150. The 74 is just too small. I have a Vista Install here and im around 80Gigs space used. (ot of steam games, all documents are saved on my home server).

Talrinys · 9 Apr 2008 at 21:14

There are new raptors coming out aren't there? I would be looking at one of those, low access times + more data with current generation perpendicular recording and data density would equal some seriously mean drives.

PhillyDee · 9 Apr 2008 at 21:38

Supposed to be (Slackworth knows more) 15k rpm (I think) 300Gb, 2.5" drives SATAII. Be next year before anything happens. I think he mentioned reliability issues. Basically, still in development.

Richdog · 9 Apr 2008 at 21:47

PhillyDee said:
Supposed to be (Slackworth knows more) 15k rpm (I think) 300Gb, 2.5" drives SATAII. Be next year before anything happens. I think he mentioned reliability issues. Basically, still in development.

I'd wager the noise and vibration is going to be horrendous...

AWPC · 10 Apr 2008 at 03:25

Vista ultimate is miles faster on a 32MB cache Samsung than the Raptor (I made the expensive mistake of getting a Raptor 150 a few months ago-sold it at a big loss to get the Samsung).

Vista flies along with the Samsung but the Raptor feels a lot slower.

Under XP however, the reverse is true & the Raptor is much faster with the Samsung feeling a little sluggish.

I should imagine that Vista file sizes are larger which is why the 32Mb cache appears to make a big difference.

Talrinys · 10 Apr 2008 at 12:46

That would also be sort of ideal i suppose, maybe a big archive file would be the best, i mean the access time wouldn't matter and the 100MB/s or so would load it in no time.

Wonder why microsoft didn't do this?