chrispchikin
Member
+3|6381
Hay guys,

looking at various options for pc specs atm at was tossing up between buying 2 320gb 16mb 7200rpm HDD's (run in Raid 0)

or

buying one 74GB Western Digital Raptor 10,000rpm HDD.


Which would be faster?
jamiet757
Member
+138|6593

chrispchikin wrote:

Hay guys,

looking at various options for pc specs atm at was tossing up between buying 2 320gb 16mb 7200rpm HDD's (run in Raid 0)

or

buying one 74GB Western Digital Raptor 10,000rpm HDD.


Which would be faster?
the drives in raid would be faster, but the best combo would be 2 raptors in raid 0, thats what I have, I just got two 36 gb raptors in raid 0 for a total of about 70 gb, enough for my operating system and programs, then my games are on two 160gb drives in raid 0 along with my documents and photos
SonderKommando
Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....
+564|6630|The darkside of Denver
Raid-0, if you can afford two Raptors then of course that would be faster, but if not then teh two 7200rpms.
splixx
ChupaCABRA
+53|6709|Omaha, Nebraska
There is not much performance increase with two raptors RAID 0.

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1063/

Last edited by splixx (2007-08-04 20:24:21)

-=raska=-
Canada's French Frog
+123|6596|Quebec city, Canada
As usually, the op suggest two options and wants a reply about one of those 2 answers, and he get people who say :"No wai you should be better with this 1 millions bucks solution!!!"

Everyone knows that 2 raptor in raid 0 would kick ass, but I dont think that if he was ready to pay for such a system, he would post here.

The thread is about 7200 rpm raid 0 or a single raptor so :

For the loading of large files, you should be better with raid 0. As you posted on a bf2 forum, I believe you will want to use your hard drives to load bf2 maps a bit faster, and I think that raid 0 should be better. However, if you plan to load lots of small files or you plan on forcing your hard drive to make quick little reads, you should be better with a raptor, because it has a better "reaction time" (I dont know the proper expression for this but I think you understand).

So globally, I'd think that a Raid 0 solution is better. Way cheaper than a Raptor and you get lot of l33t space.
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6496|South Florida

chrispchikin wrote:

Hay guys,

looking at various options for pc specs atm at was tossing up between buying 2 320gb 16mb 7200rpm HDD's (run in Raid 0)

or

buying one 74GB Western Digital Raptor 10,000rpm HDD.


Which would be faster?
buy 2 of the 150gb raptors. there actually faster at info seeking then the 74's
15 more years! 15 more years!
SexyCabbage
One Shot, One Kill ... Always
+68|6450|Kentucky
the 10,000rpm has no noticiable difference than 7,200. i would go with raid 0
Sup3r_Dr4gon
Boat sig is not there anymore
+214|6297|Australia

SexyCabbage wrote:

the 10,000rpm has no noticeable difference than 7,200. i would go with raid 0
I take it you have never actually owned a raptor - I have 74GB one, and compared to the 160GB 7200rpm drive I had before, there is a noticeable difference.
How it compares to RAID 0, I'm not entirely sure on which is better. But just remember, if one of those RAID drives fails, thats 640GB of data lost.
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6464|N. Ireland
I believe Tom's Hardware did a report on something similar like this a while back. RAID 0 will give you a much higher failure rate but is also very fast.

The conclusion for our reissued battle between the current 150 GB WD Raptor and the pair of 400 GB WD4000KD hard drives in RAID 0 is surprising. Although the WD Raptor clearly remains the fastest Serial ATA desktop hard drive, the RAID 0 array beats it in most benchmarks except access time and I/O performance. The cost per gigabyte ratio of the Raptor is particularly questionable, as you can get three times the storage capacity for half the money today, which has mainstream drives beating the Raptor by a factor of six. Enthusiasts willing to accept the higher risk of data loss in RAID 0 should carefully consider a RAID array consisting of two cheap 7,200 RPM drives over the WD Raptor.
Tom's Hardware Article
jamiet757
Member
+138|6593

-=raska=- wrote:

As usually, the op suggest two options and wants a reply about one of those 2 answers, and he get people who say :"No wai you should be better with this 1 millions bucks solution!!!"

Everyone knows that 2 raptor in raid 0 would kick ass, but I dont think that if he was ready to pay for such a system, he would post here.

The thread is about 7200 rpm raid 0 or a single raptor so :

For the loading of large files, you should be better with raid 0. As you posted on a bf2 forum, I believe you will want to use your hard drives to load bf2 maps a bit faster, and I think that raid 0 should be better. However, if you plan to load lots of small files or you plan on forcing your hard drive to make quick little reads, you should be better with a raptor, because it has a better "reaction time" (I dont know the proper expression for this but I think you understand).

So globally, I'd think that a Raid 0 solution is better. Way cheaper than a Raptor and you get lot of l33t space.
you can get two 36 gig raptors for about the same as two 320 gb 7200's

but thanks for being an ass anyways
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6464|N. Ireland

jamiet757 wrote:

-=raska=- wrote:

As usually, the op suggest two options and wants a reply about one of those 2 answers, and he get people who say :"No wai you should be better with this 1 millions bucks solution!!!"

Everyone knows that 2 raptor in raid 0 would kick ass, but I dont think that if he was ready to pay for such a system, he would post here.

The thread is about 7200 rpm raid 0 or a single raptor so :

For the loading of large files, you should be better with raid 0. As you posted on a bf2 forum, I believe you will want to use your hard drives to load bf2 maps a bit faster, and I think that raid 0 should be better. However, if you plan to load lots of small files or you plan on forcing your hard drive to make quick little reads, you should be better with a raptor, because it has a better "reaction time" (I dont know the proper expression for this but I think you understand).

So globally, I'd think that a Raid 0 solution is better. Way cheaper than a Raptor and you get lot of l33t space.
you can get two 36 gig raptors for about the same as two 320 gb 7200's

but thanks for being an ass anyways
? He made a perfectly good post.
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6493|...

-=raska=- wrote:

As usually, the op suggest two options and wants a reply about one of those 2 answers, and he get people who say :"No wai you should be better with this 1 millions bucks solution!!!"

Everyone knows that 2 raptor in raid 0 would kick ass, but I dont think that if he was ready to pay for such a system, he would post here.
You seemed to misunderstand what the OP posted, he said 1 raptor or 2 regular 320gb drives. Try to be constructive.

Last edited by jsnipy (2007-08-05 05:55:10)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

-=raska=- wrote:

As usually, the op suggest two options and wants a reply about one of those 2 answers, and he get people who say :"No wai you should be better with this 1 millions bucks solution!!!"

Everyone knows that 2 raptor in raid 0 would kick ass, but I dont think that if he was ready to pay for such a system, he would post here.

The thread is about 7200 rpm raid 0 or a single raptor so :

For the loading of large files, you should be better with raid 0. As you posted on a bf2 forum, I believe you will want to use your hard drives to load bf2 maps a bit faster, and I think that raid 0 should be better. However, if you plan to load lots of small files or you plan on forcing your hard drive to make quick little reads, you should be better with a raptor, because it has a better "reaction time" (I dont know the proper expression for this but I think you understand).

So globally, I'd think that a Raid 0 solution is better. Way cheaper than a Raptor and you get lot of l33t space.
That's pretty much exactly right.

RAID0 be only be of benefit when working with large contiguous files - but when it is doing that, it's a lot faster.

I've tried Raptors, I've tried 7200rpm drives in RAID0, I find RAID to be the better choice. Whatever you do, don't get 36GB Raptors - they can be pretty dodgy.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

jsnipy wrote:

-=raska=- wrote:

As usually, the op suggest two options and wants a reply about one of those 2 answers, and he get people who say :"No wai you should be better with this 1 millions bucks solution!!!"

Everyone knows that 2 raptor in raid 0 would kick ass, but I dont think that if he was ready to pay for such a system, he would post here.
You seemed to misunderstand what the OP posted, he said 1 raptor or 2 regular 320gb drives. Try to be constructive.
No he doesn't. You haven't read his whole post. Which was good - I don't see why he's getting criticism for it.

-=raska=- wrote:

The thread is about 7200 rpm raid 0 or a single raptor so :
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6493|...

Bertster7 wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

-=raska=- wrote:

As usually, the op suggest two options and wants a reply about one of those 2 answers, and he get people who say :"No wai you should be better with this 1 millions bucks solution!!!"

Everyone knows that 2 raptor in raid 0 would kick ass, but I dont think that if he was ready to pay for such a system, he would post here.
You seemed to misunderstand what the OP posted, he said 1 raptor or 2 regular 320gb drives. Try to be constructive.
No he doesn't. You haven't read his whole post. Which was good - I don't see why he's getting criticism for it.

-=raska=- wrote:

The thread is about 7200 rpm raid 0 or a single raptor so :
I read his whole post, and what you quoted is ontopic. Its the other stuff ...

-=raska=- wrote:

As usually, the op suggest two options and wants a reply about one of those 2 answers, and he get people who say :"No wai you should be better with this 1 millions bucks solution!!!"

Last edited by jsnipy (2007-08-05 06:05:36)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

jsnipy wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

You seemed to misunderstand what the OP posted, he said 1 raptor or 2 regular 320gb drives. Try to be constructive.
No he doesn't. You haven't read his whole post. Which was good - I don't see why he's getting criticism for it.

-=raska=- wrote:

The thread is about 7200 rpm raid 0 or a single raptor so :
I read his whole post.
Then why make a comment like that?

He clearly did understand what the OP posted (from his comments about this thread being about 7200rpm drives in RAID compared to a single Raptor) and has made the most constructive contribution (explaining the differences between the speed of RAID and of Raptors, and doing it quite well) to this thread.

He mentioned the fact the OP would probably get a lot of responses telling him to get 2 Raptors, which is exactly what happened.

jamiet757 wrote:

you can get two 36 gig raptors for about the same as two 320 gb 7200's

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-08-05 06:06:25)

jsnipy
...
+3,276|6493|...

Bertster7 wrote:

Then why make a comment like that?
I explained why in an edit, yes he answered the question but was kinda being an ass in the process but now so am i /fin
-=raska=-
Canada's French Frog
+123|6596|Quebec city, Canada
I was away for the whole night, I'd have explained what I meant but anyway thanks to Bertster and Leetkyle who seemed to understand my post.
BeerzGod
Hooray Beer!
+94|6540|United States
All you pay for with Raptors is the name "Raptor". They're popular drives because they claim 10,000rpm speeds which ARE NOT noticably different from 7,200rpm. While they are a good quality HD, they are also a massive waste of money. Go with 2 HD's from a quality brand like Seagate, or Western Digital and put them in Raid 0. You'll have three times the storage capacity then a single Raptor, you'll have a fast loading computer, and you'll be happy knowing that you didn't fall victim to the bs hype that is the Raptor.
SexyCabbage
One Shot, One Kill ... Always
+68|6450|Kentucky

BeerzGod wrote:

All you pay for with Raptors is the name "Raptor". They're popular drives because they claim 10,000rpm speeds which ARE NOT noticably different from 7,200rpm. While they are a good quality HD, they are also a massive waste of money. Go with 2 HD's from a quality brand like Seagate, or Western Digital and put them in Raid 0. You'll have three times the storage capacity then a single Raptor, you'll have a fast loading computer, and you'll be happy knowing that you didn't fall victim to the bs hype that is the Raptor.
exactly. my point earlier. all u pay for is the name
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6520|UK

BeerzGod wrote:

All you pay for with Raptors is the name "Raptor".

Go with 2 HD's from a quality brand like Seagate, or Western Digital and put them in Raid 0.
Raptors are made by western digital

Anyways, to OP, I would go with 2x320GB RAID 0.  On the failing rate of that kind of set-up, never came across (personally) a HD set up that failed on the acount of running RAID.

Martyn
Kurazoo
Pheasant Plucker
+440|6655|West Yorkshire, U.K
I have 2 x 36gb raptors running on raid 0 ,works fine for me
-=raska=-
Canada's French Frog
+123|6596|Quebec city, Canada

Bell wrote:

BeerzGod wrote:

All you pay for with Raptors is the name "Raptor".

Go with 2 HD's from a quality brand like Seagate, or Western Digital and put them in Raid 0.
Raptors are made by western digital

Anyways, to OP, I would go with 2x320GB RAID 0.  On the failing rate of that kind of set-up, never came across (personally) a HD set up that failed on the acount of running RAID.

Martyn
The problem with Raid 0 is that if one of your hard drive fails, you lose all your data on your array. Considering you have two hard drives instead of only one, you thus have twice the chances of getting a hard drive failure. Chances that one of them will fail are still small, as Beerzgod stated, but I think that its better to backup your files on a third hard drive or on CD's/DVD's. I personally have two hard drives of 160 gb in Raid 0. I never had any issue with one of them but I still have an old 40 gb that I keep for backups.

Last edited by -=raska=- (2007-08-05 13:06:52)

lavadisk
I am a cat ¦ 3
+369|6800|Denver colorado
And go pick up a mybook external hard drive while your at it.

I just got one and I couldnt be happier.

I now have more than a teribyte between my c: f: and g:
jamiet757
Member
+138|6593

Bertster7 wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


No he doesn't. You haven't read his whole post. Which was good - I don't see why he's getting criticism for it.
I read his whole post.
Then why make a comment like that?

He clearly did understand what the OP posted (from his comments about this thread being about 7200rpm drives in RAID compared to a single Raptor) and has made the most constructive contribution (explaining the differences between the speed of RAID and of Raptors, and doing it quite well) to this thread.

He mentioned the fact the OP would probably get a lot of responses telling him to get 2 Raptors, which is exactly what happened.

jamiet757 wrote:

you can get two 36 gig raptors for about the same as two 320 gb 7200's
read your subtitle:

Bertster7 wrote:

Confused Pothead
that explains your stupid posts and misconstrued facts

SexyCabbage wrote:

BeerzGod wrote:

All you pay for with Raptors is the name "Raptor". They're popular drives because they claim 10,000rpm speeds which ARE NOT noticably different from 7,200rpm. While they are a good quality HD, they are also a massive waste of money. Go with 2 HD's from a quality brand like Seagate, or Western Digital and put them in Raid 0. You'll have three times the storage capacity then a single Raptor, you'll have a fast loading computer, and you'll be happy knowing that you didn't fall victim to the bs hype that is the Raptor.
exactly. my point earlier. all u pay for is the name
where do you guys get your facts? not noticably different? look at the specs, it has faster access times and faster read and write speeds...

Last edited by jamiet757 (2007-08-05 15:02:27)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard