Are Raptors worth it

Pulsedriver · 23 Nov 2006 at 00:55

I havent noticed a difference tbh, I've used a lot of different brand hard drives, and never noticed the difference, its usually milliseconds anyway so not noticeable, just bragging rights.

I have the 150GB Raptor, looking back, id have rather got a 250GB 7200.10 Seagate, and saved the rest of the money!

Townlea · 23 Nov 2006 at 01:56

Recently bought some Raptors off of MM for £105 ...

They are the 8meg cache drives... heres the result..

For my uses its well worth it.

If your going to buy a Raptor, Buy 2

Cyber-Mav · 23 Nov 2006 at 01:58

100megs a second? that loosk like an interface limit to me.

Townlea · 23 Nov 2006 at 02:01

Cyber-Mav said:
100megs a second? that loosk like an interface limit to me.

I haven't a clue what i am doing when RAID'n HDDs.

This is my first ever RAID

tastyweat · 23 Nov 2006 at 10:47

MrMoon said:
I have just built my new system around a seagate 250gb 7200 HD and was wondering if shifting windows onto a 74gb raptor would make a huge improvement to my system, anyone who knows the answer that would be great

Well... not necessary - but I love having them!

I have 3 74GB Raptors in RAID 0, works like a dream... so fast.

Will increase windows and game loading times... you'll notice a BIG increase in things like the battelfield games!

squiffy · 23 Nov 2006 at 10:56

I you can, get a smaller SATA HD just for OS and program files alone, it'll be quicker than using a single high capacity for OS plus games on the same drive. I use three, 80GB for OS, Programs, documents, a 320GB for games and backup data, and 320GB for music collection and music encoding workspace. Much quicker as than a while ago as just used 320GB for OS + games, and the 80GB for backup data.

xsnv · 23 Nov 2006 at 11:08

Will a 36gb raptor be big enough for say an os, a few programs (ms office, photoshop, antivirus, nero + the usual) and a few games?

squiffy · 23 Nov 2006 at 11:14

xsnv said:
Will a 36gb raptor be big enough for say an os, a few programs (ms office, photoshop, antivirus, nero + the usual) and a few games?

Windows is about 1.6GB, more if you keep old update files, and/or have SP1 backup files. Plus swop file which is 1.5 times system memory by default, and perhaps hibernation which is identical to system memory (only use this on laptops really) Say another 2GB max for those applications. So I'd say a 10GB drive would be more than big enough, not including any games of course.

Course if you use XP Lite, delete old update/SP files and run custom install ie no help files can trim down Windows and programs.

Ultimate would be to use a Iram with 4GB with OS install on that, then several 320GB+ 7200RPM for data/games/music

xsnv · 23 Nov 2006 at 11:25

Hmm...one last thing...why would running the os and files on seperate smaller drives be quicker?

Have you got any practical proof?

Thanks

squiffy · 23 Nov 2006 at 11:36

xsnv said:
Hmm...one last thing...why would running the os and files on seperate smaller drives be quicker?

Have you got any practical proof?

Thanks

My own experience with multi-tasking. Playing games, ripping/encoding. Although I guess if you have lots of RAM OS access will be reduced further. But from older machines with much less RAM therefore out of memory/swapping having another drive just seemed smoother. It's common sense, the drive can't be at the different places at the same time without performance loss. Ie play a game whilst deframenting the hard drive. This is extreme example, but you might notice some slowdown during medium I/O use. It just depends what you're doing, how many HD you have, how many heavy processes are running per drive, how much memory you have.

Ie compare seperate drives. Deframenting boot drive on C: Playing a game on D: Whilst encoding a DVD-Video ISO to E: and saving the new shrinked ISO to F: all seperate drives (shrinking plus gaming at the same time will require dual core also, unless shrink process is ultra low priority but that'll take hours). No way you could do that from a single drive.

xsnv · 23 Nov 2006 at 11:47

Cool. I currently have a 320GB 7200.10 and a maxtor diamondmax 10. I was going to use the seagate for os, apps and games and have the maxtor for storage.

Would you then recommend swapping the maxtor for a 36gb raptor, running the os off it and using the seagate for storage?

Thanks.

squiffy · 23 Nov 2006 at 11:55

I would use the Maxtor for OS & Program files, then the Seagate for games. You might not even need a Raptor, like I said if you have lots of RAM it shoudn't swop, if at all. But if you do heavy disk I/O processes, plus kick back to windows during gaming you should notice the difference.

Course I think you should chuck the Maxtor out of the window. but that's another story.