Raptor

[clocker]

I want to hear about how well the Rapter works.

Sometime early next week I shall be installing a 36GB Raptor in place of my 160GB WD HDD (7200rpm, 8Mb cache).

If anyone is curious about the performance differences ( as I am), please suggest some benchmarks or tests that you feel would be a fair way to compare the two.

[bigdawgfoxx]

Sisoft Sandra Storage Benchmarks.

Are you gona run the raptor as C drive for windows and the 160GB as D for storage?

[scottwile]

i can't notice the difference from 5400RPM to 7200RPM so 7200 to 10000 probably won't make much difference? if the only difference from a normal drive and a raptor RMP'S?

[clocker]

Sisoft Sandra Storage Benchmarks.

Are you gona run the raptor as C drive for windows and the 160GB as D for storage?

OK.
Yes.

can't notice the difference from 5400RPM to 7200RPM so 7200 to 10000 probably won't make much difference? if the only difference from a normal drive and a raptor RMP'S?

The seek time is significantly lower and I believe that the SATA connection is faster also.

[muchspl2]

just one, just buy 4 74gig ones in raid 5 that should only cost about 1100 bucks

[angel_of_death57]

S-ATA also are usally better buys are cheaper than IDE i think.

S-ATA is faster and also less cables.

[Snee]

With regular sata the speed increase is hardly noticeable (something like 4Mb/s faster out of sixty I think), and last I checked they were noticeably more expensive too.

The 10000rpm raptor tho', that's where the party starts, but I wonder about it compared to say a 15000 rpm SCSI drive, is it any better(apart from the cabling I mean)?

[angel_of_death57]

Clocker could you give us some temps of theh ard drive when no cooling is applied.

10,000 will generate heat more thna a 7,500 i would think.

[lynx]

Originally posted by SnnY@31 July 2004 - 11:36
With regular sata the speed increase is hardly noticeable (something like 4Mb/s faster out of sixty I think), and last I checked they were noticeably more expensive too.

The 10000rpm raptor tho', that's where the party starts, but I wonder about it compared to say a 15000 rpm SCSI drive, is it any better(apart from the cabling I mean)?

Maximum media transfer rate for Cheetah 15k drives is 86MB/s
Sustained media transfer rate for Raptor 10k drives is 72MB/s

External transfer rate for Cheetah drives is 320MB/s
External transfer rate for Raptor Sata deives is 150MB/s

If you assume that what WDC calls sustained is the same as Seagate's Maximum, then the Cheetah's are about 20% faster internally, and about twice as fast externally.

However, the Sata drive has it's own individual interface, but the Cheetah would typically be sharing the interface with other drives, which effectively reduces it's external performance.

Sata drives in general are only slightly more expensive than their PATA equivalents, and that is probably simply because they haven't got as big a market share yet. But the Raptor's equivalent is a SCSI drive, and is consequently much more expensive than similar sized IDE drives.

[Snee]

Thanks Lynxie, that's interesting.