Hard drives

2006-11-30 13:31:26

#1

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|7005|UK

It seems on a fairly regular basis, newer faster hardware is released and us consumers are left in bewilderment at the specs and indeed the prices of the latest and greatest, case in point Intels new Quad core, and Nvidias latest flagship dx10 card.

Now, for a long time it seems the 150 Gb Western Digital Raptor hard drive has been 'the' performance HD for any serious computer nerd with more money than sense. My question is how many of you could justify the over £500 147 Gb Seagate. Raptors as many of you know run at 10000rpm, but have a bit of a rep for being noisey buggers, the 15000rpm segate now holds the speed crown, but in all honesty, is it worth it, or does anyone need that type of performance from a hard drive.

It be helpfull gentleman, if you could select the one you truly would pick, not just the money is no object choice.

Discuss...

Martyn

2006-11-30 13:50:35

#2

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7056|132 and Bush

The Raptors are definitely worth it. Everything loads much faster including boot times.
Check your times here and compare them.
http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/in … est=HdTach

Here is what my Raptors scored. Check out the average read.

https://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/101706055-L.jpg

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-11-30 14:26:34

#3

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7037|SE London

Kmarion wrote:
The Raptors are definitely worth it. Everything loads much faster including boot times.
Check your times here and compare them.
http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/in … est=HdTach

Here is what my Raptors scored. Check out the average read.
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/101706055-L.jpg

That's not fair - that looks suspiciously like a RAID setup to me.

You can't go comparing performance of a single drive to that, especially not for sustained transfer rates.

Seagate are quite good at making fast hard drives. The 15K Cheetahs for SCSI are faster than Raptors and have been for a long time. SCSI just costs loads of money. I hadn't heard they'd released a SATA version, looks interesting.

2006-11-30 14:37:40

#4

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7056|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
The Raptors are definitely worth it. Everything loads much faster including boot times.
Check your times here and compare them.
http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/in … est=HdTach

Here is what my Raptors scored. Check out the average read.
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/101706055-L.jpg
That's not fair - that looks suspiciously like a RAID setup to me.

You can't go comparing performance of a single drive to that, especially not for sustained transfer rates.

Seagate are quite good at making fast hard drives. The 15K Cheetahs for SCSI are faster than Raptors and have been for a long time. SCSI just costs loads of money. I hadn't heard they'd released a SATA version, looks interesting.

Shhh!

Cheetahs are nice but seriously check the price. Last I saw they were like $1000 for a 74 gig one. They are not made for the average consumer.

Check that.. here pick one out..lol

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi … mp;Go.y=35
compare the specs here also. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi … amp;Go.y=0
You gonna pay twice the price for 1 ms?

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-30 14:41:38)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-11-30 14:49:23

#5

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7192|Salt Lake City

I wouldn't spend that kind of money for either drive. I have a 200GB Seagate SATA drive, and that is plenty fast. The few 3-4 seconds faster for boot times, or BF2 map loads just aren't cost justifiable in my book.

2006-11-30 15:45:41

#6

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|7005|UK

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I wouldn't spend that kind of money for either drive. I have a 200GB Seagate SATA drive, and that is plenty fast. The few 3-4 seconds faster for boot times, or BF2 map loads just aren't cost justifiable in my book.

Agreed, besides there just not big enough those raptors, bring out a 250-320GB version and I will have two mr salesman.

Martyn

2006-11-30 17:15:24

#7

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7056|132 and Bush

Bell wrote:
Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I wouldn't spend that kind of money for either drive. I have a 200GB Seagate SATA drive, and that is plenty fast. The few 3-4 seconds faster for boot times, or BF2 map loads just aren't cost justifiable in my book.
Agreed, besides there just not big enough those raptors, bring out a 250-320GB version and I will have two mr salesman.

Martyn

Just get 2 and run them in raid 0 |:>)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-12-01 08:21:24

#8

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|7005|UK

Kmarion wrote:
Bell wrote:
Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I wouldn't spend that kind of money for either drive. I have a 200GB Seagate SATA drive, and that is plenty fast. The few 3-4 seconds faster for boot times, or BF2 map loads just aren't cost justifiable in my book.
Agreed, besides there just not big enough those raptors, bring out a 250-320GB version and I will have two mr salesman.

Martyn
Just get 2 and run them in raid 0 |:>)

I would but I really need atleast 500gb. My current awful rig has 160gb internal and 18 months ago I had to purchase a 320gb external and its iritating me just sitting there! I'm 25gb from total capacity and would of exceeded it months ago if it wasnt for a pretty bad failure in my system where I lost a great deal of data (useless thankfully but just as easily have been needed).

Martyn

2006-12-01 08:36:28

#9

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7056|132 and Bush

Bell wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Bell wrote:

Agreed, besides there just not big enough those raptors, bring out a 250-320GB version and I will have two mr salesman.

Martyn
Just get 2 and run them in raid 0 |:>)
I would but I really need atleast 500gb. My current awful rig has 160gb internal and 18 months ago I had to purchase a 320gb external and its iritating me just sitting there! I'm 25gb from total capacity and would of exceeded it months ago if it wasnt for a pretty bad failure in my system where I lost a great deal of data (useless thankfully but just as easily have been needed).

Martyn

Yikes, sorry to hear that. I also use an external for my Movies,Music, and Images. It's a piece of crap and I will never buy another Lacie. I am currently looking for another external eSata drive. Much faster than my current Firewire one. The Lacie is giving many "error cyclic redundancy checks ".

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-12-01 16:39:00

#10

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober: mmmm...Toasty!; +91|7178|Oregon

yeah, whatever you do, go for RAID. if you can only afford WD Caviars, go for them over one raptor (unless a future upgrade includes a second raptor). i got my 2 80gb caviars for $50 a piece on newegg.

but the raptors are nice. real nice.

i have used WD drives solely for 5 years. have yet to experience ANY issues with them at all.

2006-12-01 18:10:25

#11

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7037|SE London

Ah, forget all of them.

Just get a massive slow hard drive and a nice RAM drive. If only I had 8-16GB of spare RAM lying around....

2006-12-01 18:17:07

#12

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7037|SE London

Kmarion wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
The Raptors are definitely worth it. Everything loads much faster including boot times.
Check your times here and compare them.
http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/in … est=HdTach

Here is what my Raptors scored. Check out the average read.
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/101706055-L.jpg
That's not fair - that looks suspiciously like a RAID setup to me.

You can't go comparing performance of a single drive to that, especially not for sustained transfer rates.

Seagate are quite good at making fast hard drives. The 15K Cheetahs for SCSI are faster than Raptors and have been for a long time. SCSI just costs loads of money. I hadn't heard they'd released a SATA version, looks interesting.
Shhh!

Cheetahs are nice but seriously check the price. Last I saw they were like $1000 for a 74 gig one. They are not made for the average consumer.

Check that.. here pick one out..lol

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi … mp;Go.y=35
compare the specs here also. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi … amp;Go.y=0
You gonna pay twice the price for 1 ms?

newegg wrote:
Some motherboards are not compatible with the SCSI interface.

lol

Yeah, I know. They're not as impressive these days with SATA2 about either. I used to run a 9GB SCSI drive in my old PIII (before the release of the Athlon). That crapped all over everyone elses ATA66 (or was it 100) drives.

2006-12-01 18:21:17

#13

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|7172|Riva, MD

Bertster7 wrote:
Ah, forget all of them.

Just get a massive slow hard drive and a nice RAM drive. If only I had 8-16GB of spare RAM lying around....

I have a slow IDE drive, lol.

2006-12-01 18:28:14

#14

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7037|SE London

_j5689_ wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Ah, forget all of them.

Just get a massive slow hard drive and a nice RAM drive. If only I had 8-16GB of spare RAM lying around....
I have a slow IDE drive, lol.

So do I. Several.

Some slightly faster SATA and SATA2 drives too. Some of my SATA drives only register as being ATA133 though, which is annoying. Is that common for early SATA drives?

2006-12-01 23:27:47

#15

beerface702: Member; +65|7149|las vegas

i have two seagate barrcuda 16 meg 7200.10 drives 320gb each(perpdicular)NCQ off
paid 89 bucks each in Raid 0 with NVraid, going to be getting a hardware controller soon though, NVraid is very usnstable.

i say just do this or waste money on raptors or the new 15k seagate, the access times are unbeatable. but i would say my set up does a nice job on its own and is plenty fast.

https://show.imagehosting.us/show/1787928/0/nouser_1787/T1_-1_1787928.JPG

Last edited by beerface702 (2006-12-01 23:29:09)

147 Gb Seagate	25%	25% - 7
150 Gb Western Digital Raptor	74%	74% - 20
Total: 27

BF2S Forums Hard drives

Poll

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Bell wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bell wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Bell wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bell wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

newegg wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

_j5689_ wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Board footer