WD Raptor vs. Seagate 7200.11

[VulkanBros]

Try this :
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152102

2 of these 1 TB 32 MB cache baby´s in RAID 0 beats everything.....

Look at the conclusion : Tom´s Hardware

 

[DanishDevil]

Or these:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=56093

For less than the price of a Raptor! Then buy another later!

 

[freaksavior]

i thought you may like this.

7200.10 in raid

7200.11 single

 

[DanishDevil]

Wow. That's pretty damn legit for a single drive! I'd rather see sustained than burst, but that's still impressive.

 

[CarolinaKSU]

I'm picking up 2 of these today.. free shipping FTW

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148288

 

[DanishDevil]

You'll enjoy them! You putting them in RAID0? If you do, PLEASE post some HDTach screens!

 

[lemonadesoda]

It's important to remember that WD Raptors WERE the speed demons. But that time is well over. While they have great access speeds, they arent the best at pulling huge amounts of data on/off.

The raptors still have their place: e.g. in RAID and for "transactional use", e.g. databases.

But for the typical desktop/workstation, the performance winner today IMO is the Samsung F1 series. Fast, quiet, low power.

I was a Seagate man for many years since they (like raptors) were the best in class. (I think it was the .7 series where they were winning all benchmarks on launch).

But today, I've moved over to the F1's. Great price. Great performance. RAID two F1's and you will be hitting an interface bottleneck. Impressive.

 

[Wile E]

i thought you may like this.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/freaksavior/raid.jpg

7200.10 in raid
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/freaksavior/7211.jpg
7200.11 single

Holy shnikeys!!! I'm buying some 7200.11's.

Anybody wanna buy a couple of 320GB 7200.10's? lol

 

[DanishDevil]

Haha. That's why I almost want to stop posting this kinda stuff. Now I'm trying to get rid of my raptor lmao.

I think I'm gonna start selling my stuff before I post about how great my new stuff it

The Samsungs were an option for me, and I have to say that part of me does regret not going with them. They do seem to be a bit better than the Seagates, but I kinda wanted to go either WD or Seagate. I'm still pretty happy with my purchase.

 

[Durhamranger]

Think u`ll like this..... 7xRaptor 150Gb Drives,Areca 1231dml card.....

 

[DanishDevil]

That is pretty sweet. No way I'm spending that much, though.

 

[mrhuggles]

hmm, i dont understand, people like the 7200.11's but, the 250gb 16mb cache 7200.10 revision 3.AAC drive benches much higher, am i missing something? [250gb for a single platter]

is it just the risk in buying one? i guess most of the revisions suck

 

[DanishDevil]

Not sure. I'm no HDD expert. That's why I posted these results.

 

[mrhuggles]

this is mine, a single drive, my windows boot drive [why it bottoms out every once in a while i guess]

 

[Steevo]

RAID 5, PCI bus limited. 3 320GB Drives.

 

[kenkickr]

Here is some Raptor Raid 0 benchies from my system.

 

[Durhamranger]

Jus tryin to work out Freaksaviours results normally regardless on which drives u use,Raid 0
scales with the number ov drives used in the array,ie: Sequential read speed should roughly double with 2 drives,hence why my benchmarks are so high :ie 7 drives in the array......

cya

Ranger

 

[jonmcc33]

Yea, raptors are faster at access times but are slower than the perpindicular recording drives in transfer rates. The 74gb is slower than the 150gb too, b/c of its smaller cache.

http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3303

Seems to have high transfer rates if you ask me.

 

[Wile E]

That's the VelociRaptor, not the standard Raptor.

 

[malware]

My brand new two 500GB Seagate Barracudas 7200.11 32MB cache in striped RAID0 (32kb).



Model number: ST3500320AS
Firmware: SD15
Date code: 08411 (11 April 2008)
Made in Thailand

 

[D4S4]

I do know that more platters = more power consumption and more heat. As far as speed, I'm not sure.

Why don't they make disk-level raid0 for disks with multiple platters? 2 platters = 4 r/w surfaces -> 4 bits read/written at the same time!

 

[Deleted member 3]

Cache is irrelevant here. It's simple because the Seagate has far bigger platters. The Raptor has lower access times which is what makes them so nice. How often do you actually read/write hundreds of megabytes at once? Windows does no such thing, access time matters more in most cases.

 

[AsRock]

Cache is irrelevant here. It's simple because the Seagate has far bigger platters. The Raptor has lower access times which is what makes them so nice. How often do you actually read/write hundreds of megabytes at once? Windows does no such thing, access time matters more in most cases.

But a lot of games have files compressed into one like a zip \ rar you could say. And a lot of them are like near 200MB and some 1GB+.

EDIT: Oops forgot to add.. If they cound in being large files the same way i do not know but i would of thought so.

 

[D4S4]

Cache is irrelevant here. It's simple because the Seagate has far bigger platters. The Raptor has lower access times which is what makes them so nice. How often do you actually read/write hundreds of megabytes at once? Windows does no such thing, access time matters more in most cases.

+1

That will be proven once someone upgrades to flash disk with <1ms access time.

 

[niko084]

I don't have the test graphs but a friend of mine just ran 2 150gb Raptor 16mb NCQ drives in raid 0 against 2 WD RE 250gb 16mb drives, and under "fake" raid the RE's were BARELY slower in seek times even, on a hardware raid controller this was very different.

So goes to show if you want enterprise, don't cheap it out on the last line.