Raptors or not

bledd · 28 Feb 2007 at 18:22

rpstewart said:
Do you have any links to back that up? I can only find benchmarks for the current 250Gb drives and the results are nothing special really.

likely to be on here..

http://www.storagereview.com/

Scoobie Dave said:
Have you had any trouble with your Raptors running RAID0?

no problems at all, have used them on two different motherboards (upgrade)

i do keep copies of all my data on my raid3 setup though

chaparral · 28 Feb 2007 at 18:22

HeX said:
The 7200.10's arn't that far behind the Raptors.

They are actually faster at burst and conecutive reads due to the massive platter sizes and the vertical recording.

The Raptors are only really faster at seektime and random reads due to the faster motor.

If you look here:

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2760

Scroll down to page 10 and get past all the meaningless 'virtual' performance benchmarks, and look at actual Game loading times, WinRAR, etc. etc. tests then RAID 7200.10's is very close (and actually beats in some) Raptor 150's in every test.

Just a single 150gb raptor is beating even two the seagate 7200.10 in raid in almost all them game install and game level load tests...

DJKahuna · 28 Feb 2007 at 18:31

rpstewart said:
Do you have any links to back that up? I can only find benchmarks for the current 250Gb drives and the results are nothing special really.

It's on OCUK's site, one of the Samsung SATA drives. I can't remember which one though but it does definately say it. And i can vouch for it, they are fast.

Bane · 28 Feb 2007 at 18:34

I read somewhere on this forum that a newer Raptor was on the cards. Is that true or just some rumour?

rpstewart · 28 Feb 2007 at 18:44

There was a very credible rumour of a 300Gb Raptor a while back but it's still 3-6 months off.

jellybeard999 · 28 Feb 2007 at 18:56

bledd. said:
the manufacturer is called 'silent star' or 'silentstar', its a dual hard drive watercooling block, fits in 2x cd drive bays

its really heavy though, a few kg's before the raptors are in it, but it has noise insulation around the inside of it too

Its an Alphacool (manufacturer) Silentstar (model)

naro · 28 Feb 2007 at 19:10

Mono said:
i have to say... i wouldnt go back after using raptors.

you could go further with 15k SCSIs...

Scoobie Dave · 28 Feb 2007 at 19:31

chaparral said:
Just a single 150gb raptor is beating even two the seagate 7200.10 in raid in almost all them game install and game level load tests...

That gave me a nice big grin when I read it.

Alex_6n2 · 28 Feb 2007 at 21:17

So 2x 36GB raptors with 16MB buffers are slower than 2x 150GB Raptors with 16MB buffers?

How so?

squiffy · 28 Feb 2007 at 21:19

Alex_6n2 said:
So 2x 36GB raptors with 16MB buffers are slower than 2x 150GB Raptors with 16MB buffers?

How so?

My guess is higher platter densitity. For a defragmented 2GB file it takes up less physical circumference on the disc, therefore the heads move less.

Alex_6n2 · 28 Feb 2007 at 21:21

Oh.

I saw people talking about the older ones with 8MB buffers being slower. I'm guessing these newer 16Meg ones aren't as far behind?

Slogan · 28 Feb 2007 at 21:56

For anyone running 2x74gb raptors (16mb) - how loud are they?

Considering setting that configuration up - but was just wondering how noisy it is.

fumbles · 28 Feb 2007 at 22:00

HeX said:
The 7200.10's arn't that far behind the Raptors.

They are actually faster at burst and conecutive reads due to the massive platter sizes and the vertical recording.

The Raptors are only really faster at seektime and random reads due to the faster motor.

Get Perpendicular!

But otherwise Raptors are just 'cool'.

Slogan · 28 Feb 2007 at 23:15

fumbles said:
Get Perpendicular!

But otherwise Raptors are just 'cool'.

I dislike you for posting that.

Scoobie Dave · 28 Feb 2007 at 23:41

fumbles said:
Get Perpendicular!

But otherwise Raptors are just 'cool'.

That's funny.

Raptors still rule though.

xiphrex · 28 Feb 2007 at 23:49

Dont mean to hijack the thread but Im about to format my 8mb cache 36mb raptor (the old Sata ones that first came out ~5 years ago) and also got one of those 7200.10's and now Im just wondering which hard drive you guys recommended me to install windows xp on?

I was thinking maybe install it on the raptor and leave the other for my personal files and program files/games? Or should I definately put windows xp on the new 7200.10 drive and put something else on the raptor like a game I frequently play?

Cheers

Slogan · 1 Mar 2007 at 01:59

xiphrex said:
Cheers

Put the Operating System and the most popular Game/s on the Raptor, if you can.

Atom · 1 Mar 2007 at 04:10

I have been using a Seagate 7200.10 250gb for a few weeks as my os drive getting 75 mbs transfer, 208 burst and 13.3 seek.

This morning I installed a 74GB Raptor bought new from OC as I wanted a nipper system and installed my OS on it and the Seagate for storage. The Raptor returning 85mbs transfer, 136 burst and seek 8.0.

Can't see what the fuss is about, in normal use and bootup I see no difference.

Both are in SilentMaxx enclosures and the WD is louder on seek but not intrusive. WD also running about 4-5 degrees cooler than the Seagate.

maxta · 1 Mar 2007 at 09:23

Not the news i wanted to hear.

I just bought a 36GB raptor and its arrived this morning, about to install windows on it. If it turns out to be crap im selling it on and saving for a raptor x or another gig of ram.

Good choice?

Dr_Evil · 1 Mar 2007 at 09:31

maxta said:
Not the news i wanted to hear.

I just bought a 36GB raptor and its arrived this morning, about to install windows on it. If it turns out to be crap im selling it on and saving for a raptor x or another gig of ram.

Good choice?

If it's the new model with 16Mb cache, it should do nicely for your windows drive and you won't be disappointed!

I used the 8Mb model for my system drive for a year or so, it worked a treat and was very fast and reliable...