Why don't other manufacturers make 10k SATA drives?

charltonfan1 · 25 Jan 2006 at 16:32

I want a raptor, but can't justify their high price

Why dont other companies make similar drivers to increase competition and lower prices?

Humey · 25 Jan 2006 at 17:27

None, for good reason, all the big players apart from WD make SCSI drives so they dont want to hurt their own pocket, WD dont have this problem so have a monopoly for 10k SATA hdd's

SiriusB · 26 Jan 2006 at 02:49

The Raptor was designed and manufactured for enterprise uses. Such things as big arse servers etc.

WD didn't really have Average Joe in mind when they set about charging all that money for them

SiriusB

Slackworth · 26 Jan 2006 at 09:10

Humey said:
None, for good reason, all the big players apart from WD make SCSI drives so they dont want to hurt their own pocket, WD dont have this problem so have a monopoly for 10k SATA hdd's

That's the exact reason. The only other people who would make one is Samsung. Maxtor, Seagate and Hitachi all do SCSI drives so they aren't going to want to affect sales on these drives as it earns them far more revenue. It is unlikely that Samsung will ever bring one of these drives out as they are a small player in the market compared to the big boys and their aim has always been to make drives as silent as possible and with a 10K RPM drive, it's pretty hard to do.

AndyC · 26 Jan 2006 at 09:57

That makes sense, I always wondered - out of interest how does the performance compare to a 10K scsi drive.

Slackworth · 26 Jan 2006 at 14:29

AndyC said:
That makes sense, I always wondered - out of interest how does the performance compare to a 10K scsi drive.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/WD1500ADFD_3.html

That's a test on the new Raptor 150GB which is compared against multiple desktop and SCSI drives.

jhmaeng · 26 Jan 2006 at 23:37

In short, the Raptor is the fastest available hard disk for desktop usage. The Storage Review article comes to that conclusion through testing the Raptor in different programs and benchmarks.

In a truly multi-user setting (i.e. not just running mutiple programs but in a heavy database server environment) the SCSI ones perform better due to the fact that they were developed with those multi-user setting in mind from the ground up. But for the average gamer or general usage desktop computer, so far nothing beats the Raptor overall.

Slackworth · 27 Jan 2006 at 08:35

The Raptor is also far cheaper than SCSI in the end due to the fact SCSI drives are more expensive, you get even less space than the Raptors unless you spend silly money and you need a SCSI controller which isn't that cheap.

AndyC · 27 Jan 2006 at 10:42

Thank you both, very interesting (including the charts) always wondered why people went this route, missed the point that windows and level loading isn't major disk multitasking.

In terms of performance its closer than I thought too.

ACPCUP · 27 Jan 2006 at 11:05

Does windows load up faster with a raptor?

Moeks · 27 Jan 2006 at 13:44

Yea it does a bit.

Slackworth · 28 Jan 2006 at 00:09

ACPCUP said:
Does windows load up faster with a raptor?

Definately.

max power · 28 Jan 2006 at 17:29

i was thinking about some peoples reasoning behing why more manufactures dont make 10k sata drives. because they dont want to hurt their scsi market. that really doesnt make a lot of sence to me. u cant buy a sata drive and plug it into a scsi cable. entire companies buisness are not going to just toss out their scsi and buy sata. that like saying that when amd came out the entire pc market switched to amd because their cheeper and faster. and we all no that didnt happen and amd has been around for quite a while now. really the two technology's arent compatible so y would it hurt their scsi markets ?

like everyone will wake up tomorrow and say: "OMG 10k sata drives that are a bit cheeper ! lets just toss out the gajillion $$$ we have in scsi equipment and buy all new sata equipment ! " i realy dont see that happening.

so the question remains... why are there no other 10k sata drives ?

ByteJuggler · 28 Jan 2006 at 22:04

max power said:
i was thinking about some peoples reasoning behing why more manufactures dont make 10k sata drives. because they dont want to hurt their scsi market. that really doesnt make a lot of sence to me. u cant buy a sata drive and plug it into a scsi cable. entire companies buisness are not going to just toss out their scsi and buy sata.

Maybe not immediately, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will when they buy new kit, if the Sata kit has the same MTBF and general performance profile of their currently expensive SCSI kit... Upgrades and the purchasing happens every so often in businesses as it does in end-users...

Tens · 29 Jan 2006 at 00:11

yeh tis a good question, something you always wonder and just dont bother asking

max power · 29 Jan 2006 at 04:14

ByteJuggler said:
Maybe not immediately, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will when they buy new kit, if the Sata kit has the same MTBF and general performance profile of their currently expensive SCSI kit... Upgrades and the purchasing happens every so often in businesses as it does in end-users...

so then y hasnt the entire industry moved to amd ? i just dont buy that arguement. most people stick with what works and the scsi market is far to entrenched to change anytime soon even if everyone launched 10k sata drives tomorrow.

tomos · 29 Jan 2006 at 09:41

because they couldn't handle it? all thos huuuuuuuge corporations moving to AMD? their support needs would be massive i would think, also possibly due to intel chipsets being very reliable while AMD generally have 3rd parties build theirs (i mean i've never seen anyone use an AMD motherboard)

i suppose there's always the manager point. some head of IT who doesnt have a clue would pick intel since they are 'just better'

max power · 29 Jan 2006 at 15:51

and that y i dont buy the argument that everyome would just toss out their scsi and jump on the sata bandwagon even id it was cheeper.

Slackworth · 29 Jan 2006 at 16:58

If it was cheaper then there is always a risk people would move to SATA especially if the drives were increased to 15K RPM. If they can make more money through SCSI - what's the point?

tomos · 29 Jan 2006 at 17:18

i would say that the companies involved have done their own research into this subject after ( and probably well before) the raptor and decided it was not worth the risk and i imagine that research would be far more involved than any argument anyone here could come up with for them to make 10k rpm sata drives.

they wouldnt just choose not to on a whim.

anyway, on a sidenote, anyone think WD have the tech to make 15k rpm sata drives?