Raptor or 7200.10's

James_Bong

James_Bong

James_Bong

Associate
Joined
14 Oct 2003
Posts
81
Which would be best for me:

1 x Raptor 150GB SATA I 16MB

or

2 x (raid 0) Seagate 250GB 7200.10 SATA II 16MB


Running on MSI Neo 4 Platinum, X2 4400, 2G, 7800GTX.

Are there any problem/issues running SATA II drives on the MSI Neo 4?

Which drive(s) would give me the best performance?

The Seagates work out cheaper and I get a lot more storage. But really don't need anywhere near 500GB, 150GB would be plenty for me.

I guess it's just a question of performance and price, I can't decide what to buy.....
 
to be honest in everyday usage I dont think you will notice that much difference unless you really want to look

I would personally go for the raid 0 only because its cheaper and just incase at some point you DO need the extra storage
 
Why not go with a Raptor 74 16mb cache + a 7000.10 @250GB or even the 320GB?

Works out cheaper.

Raptor 74GB for OS and programs whilst the 7000.10 for Storage.

No need for Raid0 - too risky if any of the 2 drives fails.
 
James_Bong:

I would go along with what Dr Jones suggested:

Why not go with a Raptor 74 16mb cache + a 7000.10 @250GB or even the 320GB?

Works out cheaper.

Raptor 74GB for OS and programs whilst the 7000.10 for Storage.
Click to expand...
:)
 
Ive been running raid0 for a while now, and while I've not suffered any dataloss, I cant say I've been that excited by the performance either.

CPU usage while accessing the raid is higher than the normal disks, I think my windows boot time might be a couple of seconds faster, but its nothing special, likewise loading time for games half a second faster perhaps. But nothing that makes a worthwhile difference.

I'll be replacing my raid0 with a single Seagate 320gig 7200.10 as soon as I get around to it.
 
Admiral Huddy said:
From what I've been reading, there isn't much between these drives as far as performance is concerened despite the raptor operating at high speeds.

Bang for buck, your best off with the Seagate.
Click to expand...

The Raptor is significantly faster as I/O, so random access is quicker than what high end 7200s can offer - e.g. Boot times, search time - i.e. immediately after boot, go into search and search for .jpg (a Raptor can find them all faster! than any 7200 HDD can*)

*provided there's a lot of files

Saw that on my mate's P4HT 2.4 system with a raptor (the 8mb cache) compared to my P4HT 2.8 with a Maxtor ;) , with similar amount of files and size.
 
seagate, cant stand 10k+ whines.

And its cheaper + bigger.

Also this raid 0 failure bs gets me, i have a 2 drive raid 0 array thats been on my p4 since i got it a few years back, not crashed once.

Same goes for my quad drive raid 0 in my main rig, not crashed since day 1.




Besides, even if it did, i have 2 backups of everything :p
 
If you want the best, buy a raptor.

If you'd rather have something nearly as good with a lot more storage go the other route.

I was also one of the ' Raptors are not worth the money ' people till i brought one a few weeks ago.

If you had a raptor you'd understand. So i'm guessing you don't or you've not been able to see the difference.
 
I have decided to go for two 7200.10's, not sure if I will raid them or not yet.
May just use one for critical data and the other for the OS.

I was going to raid them but after looking at the SMART info of my existing drives I'm a bit concerned they don't have much life left in them.

I own a couple of the old 36Gb 8MB raptors (got them the day Raptor were first released in the UK), one seems to be on it's way out according to the SMART info.

I also own a couple of maxtors one is about 2 years old but appears to be overheating reaching it maximum temp and the other is around a year old and is only 72% healthy according to SMART info.
Damn you Maxtor and your shoddy drives ;)
 
My 150gb raptor is about one of the best upgrades i have brought for my PC...Almost everything is so much faster with the raptor then what it was with my 200gb 7200rpm sata drive i had before...
 
People always say its twice as likely to break down having a raid array.
You still do realise its highly unlikely.....
drives with 50k hours mtbf, lets say half that with 2 in raid-0 (although I doubt its anything near that) and thats still a hell of a long time.

I had a 36gig raptor the other week (sold it within a week) wasn't impressed by its performance, nowhere near as fast as my raid0 array (2x7200.7's)
Albeit the 150gb 16mb raptor is much quicker, but I would personally get the seagates. Much quieter too
 
lay-z-boy said:
seagate, cant stand 10k+ whines.

And its cheaper + bigger.

Also this raid 0 failure bs gets me, i have a 2 drive raid 0 array thats been on my p4 since i got it a few years back, not crashed once.

Same goes for my quad drive raid 0 in my main rig, not crashed since day 1.




Besides, even if it did, i have 2 backups of everything :p
Click to expand...


Q.F.T. There's a lot of nay saying with regards to Raid 0 these days. It's quite simple. if you're prepared to accept that two (or more) drives will be used in a raid 0 array, then just treat them as ONE disk. if it fails it fails, it's no different to someone with a single physical disk failing....


If you don't have data backups, you're screwed whether you've used Raid 0 or a single JBOD disk.

Personally, I dont trust my PC's to hold my critical data anyway, all that stuff is hold on proper SCSi disks in my data server, that has proper backups.

Nuff said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom