New WD Raptor Drive on the horizon...

Way to over priced. Sure the drive is going to be amazingly speedy, but 150GBs is just not enough for me when I consider in the price tag. I can get about five 250GBs that are still pretty good performers for that price.
 
Who said Ferrari's were cheap? This definitely isn't a HD for people with a modest money tree. I'm gonna have to whore myself out to afford a set. :(
 
Is there much point to a Raptor with Serial SCSI starting to make it's appearance? The SCSI drives are better built, can offer up to 15k RPM, and unless I'm mistaken, ARE backward compatible with SATA.
 
Shogun said:
Is there much point to a Raptor with Serial SCSI starting to make it's appearance? The SCSI drives are better built, can offer up to 15k RPM, and unless I'm mistaken, ARE backward compatible with SATA.

A Raptor is suited towards desktop use. Often times SCSi drives dont performan as well in the desktop enviroment, a drive like a Raptor can often times beat out a SCSI drive in these tests and general use easily, but then again the Raptor gets beat in a server environment.

Then there's cost probably, though I havent done any direct comparison's, the last I knew SCSI driver were still very expensive, even to a drive such as the Raptor.
 
I would assume SCSI manufacturers would offer firmware optionally more tuned for desktop performance as SAS becomes more mainstream. The enthusiest market offers high margin growth potential which surely would not be ignored. Given the option, I would take a Fujitsu MAU over a Raptor any day, (Yeah I'd even be willing to pay for it).
 
I'm sure they could, and I dont disagree with you. I would much rather choose an other HD, in fact a size performance ratio is what I look for, which neither HD offers really in spades, so I dont really consider either one right for me. But currently SAS is still relatively unknown, but I'm sure in a year or so the landscape will be changed greatly.
 
Karma Police said:
I got a SCSI right here for $100.............oh wait, did you mean SATA? :D

Where do you get your 10k RPM 150GB SCSI drive for $100? All 147GB 10kRPM SCSI drives cost more than US$200 (most are more than US$300) here.
 
radeonic2 said:
Find a 10K 150GB drive for cheaper...

Why though? Spending around the same price for 4 120 or 160GB 7200rpm serial drives and putting them in a Raid 5 or 10 array will give you better performance and substantially more space.
 
ANova said:
Why though? Spending around the same price for 4 120 or 160GB 7200rpm serial drives and putting them in a Raid 5 or 10 array will give you better performance and substantially more space.
Better throughput, but not better seek times.
 
Chalnoth said:
Better throughput, but not better seek times.
Beaten:(
Every hardware site needs a sticky on the forums explaining that raid 0/5 doesn't mean it's twice as fast for two drives and so on for most desktop applications excluding video editing.
You're only as fast as your weakest link ;)
That or a simple link to on of the many excellent threads at storagereview.
If you can't afford it tough luck, but it should be atleast interesting to see how it performs, much like ultra high end cpus and videocards.
Oh and 5 bucks says the difference between the gamer version and the server version is the firmware ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the other hand, RAID 1 can reduce average seek time. You can read from two disks at the same time, and it's possible that one disk returns the data earlier than another. In an ideal condition, two identical drives with n ms seek time in RAID 1 configuration can yield 2n/3 ms seek time on average.

Of course, under multi-tasking environment (such as servers) it's better to just let two threads use different disks.
 
What I'm mainly curious about @ this point is do these new drives have a higher arial density then the previous Raptors, or does it just have more platters? :-|

Some of the 7200 rpm drives are starting to catch up to the Raptors (not in seek, but everything else), so it would be nice to see WD step up performance a bit.
 
I got the 36gig when it came out, and the 74gig as well. Still have it. Im sure Ill get the newest version, as it will be the single fastest drive out. Its all about load times, first to the tank!
 
Chalnoth said:
Better throughput, but not better seek times.
Not for one single threaded load (so won't help game load times).

But for a multi-threaded/proces load you have more spindles and therefore less contention and way better average seek time with 4 spindles in RAID-5 than one fast one.

Cheers
Gubbi
 
Gamer edition hard drive?
Sheesh, do we need more proof that "gamer"="sucker" in market speak?
Re: hard drive speed
Seek times can be shortened by RAID1, just as pcchen said. Another, cheaper way to go is simply to partition the drive. It doesn't affect the rotational latency, but it does shorten the stroke and thus lowers total average seek time quite effectively. In fact the fastest 3.5 inch drives use smaller than standard platters, 2.8-3 inches. (Earlier Raptors as well unless I misremember.)
Average transfer rates are more effectively inreased by striping, for large files. It's a whole lot cheaper for gaming purposes, and is likely to be just as well performing, or possibly (probably) better.

Overall, I question the need. As far as I know the only point where a game accesses the drives is at start and at level loads, and it would seem that level load times are mostly dominated by setup, i.e. host performance, not drive performance.
In actual gameplay the drive isn't accessed, and thus its performance is completely irrelevant.

How to get a consumer to buy a $300 150GB drive rather than a $100 250GB drive with a few ms slower access times, and 20 % lower transfer rate?
Slap Gamer on it!
Christ.
 
Back
Top