7200.10 or 150gb Raptor?

.Griff. · 18 Sep 2006 at 20:40

I'm going to appologise in advance as this could be (probably is) a common question but I've been researching this section of the forums for a week now without convincing myself either way.

My ageing Diamonmax Plus 9 needs to go to HD heaven and I'm ready to buy a replacement. I've heard good things about the 320gb 7200.10 and was ready to buy one when I couldn't help thinking how much better the 150gb Raptor would be.

As I use the PC mainly for gaming (rather than mass storage) would I really be better off spending the extra cash on the Raptor despite the smaller capacity or would the 7200.10 be the best investment?

hyper_piper45 · 18 Sep 2006 at 20:48

Personally i don't think the extra cost warrants the extra performance boost, especially as it may not be that apparent in real world usage.

Bin Boy · 18 Sep 2006 at 21:11

If you can make use of the sata2 speed on the Seagate drive then go for the seagate other wise go for the raptor, have seen both in action and can say that things get done quicker with the raptor, just takes the edge of the waiting time.

If western digital were to bring out a new raptor like 150GB Raptor, Sata 2, 32Mb cache and perpendicular technology with 15000 RPM, then it would be better than a seagate, the choice would be obvious.

pcknight · 18 Sep 2006 at 21:21

I would say go for the Seagate.

.Griff. · 18 Sep 2006 at 22:05

Bin Boy said:
If you can make use of the sata2 speed on the Seagate drive

I'm using a DFI UT NT4 Ultra-D with an Opty @ 2.7ghz so I'm guessing the mobo would "take advantage" of the sata2 speed. Going on that would you suggest I save some money and go for the 7200.10?

mcfly666 · 19 Sep 2006 at 15:13

another vote for the segate, good drives imo you could even get two smaller capacity drives and run them in raid,plus you get a bit more performance out of the drives cuz there smaller imao

Neil79 · 19 Sep 2006 at 15:21

Seagate...

Raptors are noisy well atleast the one i had was, any my previous raptor died after constantly grinding for 5mins every few hours.

Slackworth · 19 Sep 2006 at 23:20

Bin Boy said:
If western digital were to bring out a new raptor like 150GB Raptor, Sata 2, 32Mb cache and perpendicular technology with 15000 RPM, then it would be better than a seagate, the choice would be obvious.

WD will not be moving into the 15KRPM market for at least a couple of years. The 300GB Raptor is on its way eventually but the specification is still vary sparse.

deadeyedic30 · 20 Sep 2006 at 11:21

And how much will one of those cost ? :eek:

jbloggs · 20 Sep 2006 at 19:06

Instead of getting a 150GB Raptor, why not get a 36GB/74GB Raptor (16MB cache) for Windows XP/Games, and a 320GB 7200.10 Seagate for storage, and have the best of both worlds.

payingattention · 20 Sep 2006 at 19:30

The Raptor will be faster as an OS drive and for loading games, but as jbloggs suggests it's pointless using it for storage when you could use a larger, quieter drive for that purpose.

Off topic: jbloggs, you're the only other person in 2 years I've seen with a 3.4 GHz Northwood, kudos

(plus you have the exact same ASUS video card as me)

Bin Boy · 20 Sep 2006 at 23:02

WWS|Griff said:
I'm using a DFI UT NT4 Ultra-D with an Opty @ 2.7ghz so I'm guessing the mobo would "take advantage" of the sata2 speed. Going on that would you suggest I save some money and go for the 7200.10?

Well i did, i was going to order two raptors 150GB WD1500ADFD then changed my mind at the last minute and dont regret it, i needed the harddrive space with two 7200.10 320GB which in raid are just as fast and at £100.00 cheaper.

It's like the raptors work to get the programs loaded has fast as they can when you see the windows desktop you can use it right away, with the two seagates in raid its about 2-3 seconds longer.

Raptors are still faster but the gap is closing.

I'll look forward to WD raptor 15k then in a couple of years.

Messiah Khan · 20 Sep 2006 at 23:27

jbloggs said:
Instead of getting a 150GB Raptor, why not get a 36GB/74GB Raptor (16MB cache) for Windows XP/Games, and a 320GB 7200.10 Seagate for storage, and have the best of both worlds.

Agreed. Or go for a 250Gb 7200.10 to save a bit of money.

jbloggs · 20 Sep 2006 at 23:41

payingattention:

Bit of topic!

Bought the 3.4GHz N/Wood (retail), just before the release of socket 775 (2 years ago) and put it on an Asus P4P800 E Deluxe motherboard + Scythe FCS-50 (Abit IC7-MAX3 is now defunct, so I have it on another P4P800 E Deluxe), it was my first self-build.

I do quite a bit of encoding/video work, so the N/Wood deals well with that. Added the AX800XT when they were on special on OCs, reckon I will wait until next July/August before I build another to replace it, as it is more than adequate for my needs.

Gibbs · 21 Sep 2006 at 00:28

pcknight said:
I would say go for the Seagate.

just got my 7200.10 and its so quite and fast its well worth it.