How did you test it? Access times are extremely difficult to measure accurately for a range of apps, I had a lot of trouble when I did my testing...Poseidon wrote:
I've tested it too, and my loading times SIGNIFICANTLY dropped in games like BF2, CSS, etc. I had a 7200 RPM 250gb Barracuda in my old comouter, and it was definately much, much slower than this Raptor. I couldn't be happier with the speed this thing has - it's incredible.Bertster7 wrote:
You might beg to differ, doesn't make you right....Poseidon wrote:
I have a 150 gb raptor and I beg to differ.
I'm buying another one this summer, but I'm not gonna put 'em in RAID0.
I currently have several Raptors lying around, amongst my many, many hard drives. They are not as fast as "slower" larger capacity drives. I've tested this at length.
Of course this is based on typical usage scenarios rather than out of the box speeds - a Raptor with only the OS installed on it will obviously run faster than a 7200rpm drive with only the OS on it - but as the drives start to fill up, the Raptors lead drops until it falls way behind. Making good use of partial stroking I've had a few 7200rpm drives that have beaten Raptors quite comfortably.
For the price of a 150GB Raptor you can get a 750GB 7200rpm drive. If both drives have a normal amount of data on, say 80GB, the 750GB drive will have better access times, it's very simple. I've even managed to setup 7200rpm drives in a RAID0 array to have better access times than Raptors (remember RAID has quite a negative impact on access times).
You need to look at real world performance, not benchmarks on empty systems, which are all well and good, but fairly pointless.
I only have 35 something gigs of space left on my 150 gig Raptor, and it's still blazingly fast in every game I play.
The benchmarks can say what they want, but with my personal experience, the Raptor is well worth the money. Putting Raptors in RAID0, yes, I agree is stupid because there's no significant performance spike. However - simply having a Raptor and using it is well worth the money.
That's not entirely accurate.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course if you fill up your drives they'll slow down significantly, but if you keep the same relative percentage raptors will be faster. You aren't looking at the most storage possible if you are buying raptors.
I saw a measurable decrease in BF2 load times going from a 80gb/150gb 7200RPM drive to a 20gb/32gb raptor, both defragmented frequently.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-01-31 11:32:03)
SSD= windows and game load time is great but reading and response time sucks big time.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not entirely accurate.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course if you fill up your drives they'll slow down significantly, but if you keep the same relative percentage raptors will be faster. You aren't looking at the most storage possible if you are buying raptors.
I saw a measurable decrease in BF2 load times going from a 80gb/150gb 7200RPM drive to a 20gb/32gb raptor, both defragmented frequently.
In any case it is far easier and cheaper to keep a reasonable amount of space free on a larger drive than it is on a little tiny Raptor. I'm not going to bore you with equations to prove it, but think about it rationally and it is true. I've done extensive testing to support this and am 100% confident about this. If you want to spend lots of money on performance drives, don't be a mug and buy a Raptor, just get a SSD - which are superb (although I've only used them in MacBook Airs, which are shit).
You are chatting complete rubbish..Sup wrote:
SSD= windows and game load time is great but reading and response time sucks big time.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not entirely accurate.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course if you fill up your drives they'll slow down significantly, but if you keep the same relative percentage raptors will be faster. You aren't looking at the most storage possible if you are buying raptors.
I saw a measurable decrease in BF2 load times going from a 80gb/150gb 7200RPM drive to a 20gb/32gb raptor, both defragmented frequently.
In any case it is far easier and cheaper to keep a reasonable amount of space free on a larger drive than it is on a little tiny Raptor. I'm not going to bore you with equations to prove it, but think about it rationally and it is true. I've done extensive testing to support this and am 100% confident about this. If you want to spend lots of money on performance drives, don't be a mug and buy a Raptor, just get a SSD - which are superb (although I've only used them in MacBook Airs, which are shit).
It's a little bit slower (on the newer drives, on the older ones it was quite a lot slower) - but read times are better. Read times are the ones that need to be fast most of the time.elbekko wrote:
I thought writing was alot slower on SSDs, making it a very big downside.
here you goBertster7 wrote:
You are chatting complete rubbish..Sup wrote:
SSD= windows and game load time is great but reading and response time sucks big time.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not entirely accurate.
In any case it is far easier and cheaper to keep a reasonable amount of space free on a larger drive than it is on a little tiny Raptor. I'm not going to bore you with equations to prove it, but think about it rationally and it is true. I've done extensive testing to support this and am 100% confident about this. If you want to spend lots of money on performance drives, don't be a mug and buy a Raptor, just get a SSD - which are superb (although I've only used them in MacBook Airs, which are shit).
SSD drives have by far the best response times, about 50x better than those on Raptors. Nor are seek times impacted (to anything like the same extent) by the disk getting full. They are also almost 100% reliable.
Your tongue is out? Why is that? Because you got it totally wrong and said the opposite to what is true?.Sup wrote:
here you goBertster7 wrote:
You are chatting complete rubbish..Sup wrote:
SSD= windows and game load time is great but reading and response time sucks big time.
SSD drives have by far the best response times, about 50x better than those on Raptors. Nor are seek times impacted (to anything like the same extent) by the disk getting full. They are also almost 100% reliable.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/storage/r … e-Drive/p4
I meant file transfers. That Hitachi drive that you see in the review is an ordinary 7200rpm drive and it beats SSd's. *My tongue is out*
But transfer rate sucks. Period.Bertster7 wrote:
Your tongue is out? Why is that? Because you got it totally wrong and said the opposite to what is true?.Sup wrote:
here you goBertster7 wrote:
You are chatting complete rubbish.
SSD drives have by far the best response times, about 50x better than those on Raptors. Nor are seek times impacted (to anything like the same extent) by the disk getting full. They are also almost 100% reliable.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/storage/r … e-Drive/p4
I meant file transfers. That Hitachi drive that you see in the review is an ordinary 7200rpm drive and it beats SSd's. *My tongue is out*
Access times are lower by almost a factor of 100, read times are lower, write times are (on the better drives - not that one) very similar to standard drives. An SSD RAID0 array beats any other type of hard drive setup by miles and miles at everything.
No it doesn't..Sup wrote:
But transfer rate sucks. Period.Bertster7 wrote:
Your tongue is out? Why is that? Because you got it totally wrong and said the opposite to what is true?.Sup wrote:
here you go
http://www.trustedreviews.com/storage/r … e-Drive/p4
I meant file transfers. That Hitachi drive that you see in the review is an ordinary 7200rpm drive and it beats SSd's. *My tongue is out*
Access times are lower by almost a factor of 100, read times are lower, write times are (on the better drives - not that one) very similar to standard drives. An SSD RAID0 array beats any other type of hard drive setup by miles and miles at everything.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-02-01 13:05:32)
The price is what you pay for the absolute best. It's a lot more reasonable than SAS drives..Sup wrote:
And the price is another bonus right?
The price is not reasonable, not yet at least. For that much money i would like to see SSD's win in all categories, every SSD not just the ones you tested. Pathetic 16 and 32 gigs for a starting price of 3000€. A Raptor is a better buy.Bertster7 wrote:
The price is what you pay for the absolute best. It's a lot more reasonable than SAS drives..Sup wrote:
And the price is another bonus right?
Last edited by aimless (2008-02-01 14:49:08)
up to 15,000 RPM I think, but people dont bother with SCSI for home use as they are hard to set up, mainly used for serversaimless wrote:
quick question, how fast are SCSI drives compared to SATA, PATA/IDE, or SSD?
You're shopping from the wrong places. 32GB drives cost about £250 (less than 400 Euros). You can get upto 512GB drives. You seem to have no grasp at all of what the important performance areas for high speed drives are (access time and read transfer rate)..Sup wrote:
The price is not reasonable, not yet at least. For that much money i would like to see SSD's win in all categories, every SSD not just the ones you tested. Pathetic 16 and 32 gigs for a starting price of 3000€. A Raptor is a better buy.Bertster7 wrote:
The price is what you pay for the absolute best. It's a lot more reasonable than SAS drives..Sup wrote:
And the price is another bonus right?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-02-02 04:13:21)
Last edited by mikkel (2008-02-02 04:41:34)
