Are Raptors worth it
- Thread starter MrMoon
- Start date
Associate
it all really depends on what you are going to be doing with the system! they are faster but dont expect any massive improvements. most peeps are sticking with the 7200.10's for silence and cost cutting with little performance loss.
Soldato
agreed Raptor's are very overpriced for a barely noticale difference. That said, I did pick a 36GB one off Flea-Bay for £40 so if you can get one for that go for it!
I picked up my 36GB raptor cheap second hand and the difference i noticed with it compared to my seagate 200gb 7200.7 at the time was huge. However, i recently got myself a 320GB 7200.10 and now it has taken the lead over the raptor for me. Much more storage space, faster burst speeds/sustained transfer speeds.
The raptor is better for reading lots of smaller files in one go (eg when loading the os) but the Seagate is better for game loading times. So my setup is to have windows on the raptor and all my apps/games on the seagate. If it was me having to choose, then i would just get a second 7200.10 rather than spend the extra on a raptor.
EDIT: Here's a screeny of my raptor vs seagate:
The raptor is better for reading lots of smaller files in one go (eg when loading the os) but the Seagate is better for game loading times. So my setup is to have windows on the raptor and all my apps/games on the seagate. If it was me having to choose, then i would just get a second 7200.10 rather than spend the extra on a raptor.
EDIT: Here's a screeny of my raptor vs seagate:
mark1 said:I picked up my 36GB raptor cheap second hand and the difference i noticed with it compared to my seagate 200gb 7200.7 at the time was huge. However, i recently got myself a 320GB 7200.10 and now it has taken the lead over the raptor for me. Much more storage space, faster burst speeds/sustained transfer speeds.
The raptor is better for reading lots of smaller files in one go (eg when loading the os) but the Seagate is better for game loading times. So my setup is to have windows on the raptor and all my apps/games on the seagate. If it was me having to choose, then i would just get a second 7200.10 rather than spend the extra on a raptor.
EDIT: Here's a screeny of my raptor vs seagate:
Your comparing the 36gb raptor - thats the slowest and oldest.
The 74 and especially the 150gb are much faster again.
Definately worth getting a 150gb raptor, they are so fast its untrue.
Makes your whole PC much more responsive.
Soldato
iirc because the disc is larger it can read at a higher rate.RizL4 said:
Hopefully someone will come and confirm/disregard that though.
Seagate 7200.10s are well worth it though. Very fast drives
The access times are pretty much the same across the whole range of raptor drives, even the new ones.Dave2150 said:
My point was not that it has poor access times because i agree with you there, it does indeed make the system feel more responsive.
My point was that the sustained transfer/burst speeds aren't as good as 7200.10's and considering the huge price hike for a raptor, the 7200.10 is simply the better option for price/performance. If you can afford it though then sure, go for the raptor but it's no longer the front runner when it comes to large files such as game files.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 1,672
yeah be warry if you buying a cheap 36gb or 74gb raptor there are 2 version of each. old originals and the new and imprioved wich have roughly same speed as the latest 150gb
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 1,672
mark1 said:
dont forgget the one you used in your test is an old raptor they have been made faster since then and i just went thorugh all the benchmarks on toms and the 150 beats there 7200.10 spinpoint in every benchmark. the newer raptor have a average read spead of 20mb more than the original 36gb
Last edited:
36gb is slowest, 74gig raptor has more agressive zoneing so its quicker and the raptor i have the 150 gig is very quick, starts transfer rate at 85meg a second and ends up at 56megs a second. very quick access times too.
main reason i bought it is because its supposed to be more reliable than regular drives.
main reason i bought it is because its supposed to be more reliable than regular drives.
Associate
I personally won't use anything but Raptors for my system drive now. They ARE NOT value for money, but if you want the best you have to pay the extra buck and the Raptors are really REALLY fast! Booting up XP takes just a few seconds with my 74g Raptor, if you keep it well maintained with Defragging and not installing non-essential junk it's fast as a very fast thing rthyming with luck!!
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 728
RizL4 said:so whats 2x150gb raptors like
They are very nice indeed in RAID 0, but I'd admit the performace gain is marginal over a single raptor. I went for it because I have a real issue with load times and I could afford it at the time
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 2,676
hmm ok guys i just bought a 36gb raptor off the mm that's dated sep 2004 will this be one of the new improved or older style? i was planning on having the raptor for games + xp boot and keeping my seagate 7200.10 250gb for downloads and files etc etc?
Associate
using a raptor x and a 320gb.10 seagate( a fixed one!) cant notice much difference and cant justify spending near 180 for the raptor
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 1,672
cant say for certain but i would expect a 2004 to be old style raptor. look at the sticker on it if its wd360gd its older 8mb cache version.
the newer ones are wd360adfd 16mb cache. oh and raptors come with 5 year warranty
the newer ones are wd360adfd 16mb cache. oh and raptors come with 5 year warranty