Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 84 of 84
  1. #76
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    LOL I don't know what kind it is but must be some good sheite!

  2. #77
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,463

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by alex666 View Post
    But to be sure, hey, Oral, how many did you buy?
    Two.

    Quote Originally Posted by tuskenraider View Post
    Your impression of the Raptor has no bearing on ours.
    Clearly.

    Quote Originally Posted by tuskenraider View Post
    So there are a few drives released in the last few months that can match a Raptor in some areas, and those are some large drives that still can cost a good deal more than a Raptor.
    It's virtually all areas that do not depend heavily on acess time, and the smaller versions of these larger models have the same performance. You can get near raptor performance, in most uses, and doube raptor storage, for less than 75 bucks.

    Quote Originally Posted by tuskenraider View Post
    If you have to penny pinch, the Raptor was never meant for you.
    I don't really have to penny pinch, but I always look to get the most for my money, even if it means getting a tiny bit less.

    If that one second, or 5%, is worth paying 100-200% more to someone, fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by tuskenraider View Post
    Apparantly you must be clueless that people DO actually spend extra money for small performance advantages in all types of hobbies, endeavors, etc. and the Raptor's advantage has been proven over and over. That may eventually come to an end, but I won't be shedding a tear when that happens and I'm in the market for a new drive.
    I am well aware that people are willing to spend more money for little reason, or fictional reasons.

    I'm not saying that a raptor was necissarily a bad idea when you bought it, but I'm quite convinced it's a bad investment for anyone looking to purchase a new drive now, unless they are trying to build a lower midrange server, or have more money than they know what to do with.
    Last edited by oralpain; 08-13-2007 at 12:58 PM.

  3. #78
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Northern UT
    Age
    68
    Posts
    4,506

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by oralpain View Post

    It's virtually all areas that do not depend heavily on acess time, and the smaller versions of these larger models have the same performance. You can get near raptor performance, in most uses, and doube raptor storage, for less than 75 bucks.
    There is some truth to that, I'll admit. I was reading a review today here:

    http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q3...0/index.x?pg=1

    where the raptor held its own in a number of tests, especially those re. access speeds, but in many others it had middling performance.

    marty
    Gigabyte P55A-UD4P, Core i7-860 Lynnfield at 3.6GHz, ZALMAN CNPS10X QUIET 120mmCPU HSF, CORSAIR Vengeance (2 x 4GB) DDR3 at 1640, PowerColor HD5870, Earthworks 650W PSU, Samsung 840 EVO 120g SSD (W10 Pro 64-bit), 320G Blue Caviar storage, LiteOn DVD burner, Antec 902 case [B]
    ASRock Z68 Extreme3, i5 2500K OCed at 4.5GHz, CM 212 Hyper Plus, G. Skill Ripjaws 4G X 2 2133 Ram, Samsung 840 EVO 250G, 3Tb Seagate HDD, unknown DVD drive, XFX Double D Radeon HD 7870, PC Power and Cooling 610 Silencer, Fractal Define R4 Case, LG 27" AOC IPS monitor, Win 10 Home 64-bit

  4. #79
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Remember that they performed virtually ALL of the hitachi tests in a fraction of the full span of the drive. That gives a very misleading picture of the drive's performance, as has been discussed before. Indeed, it doesn't place that much significance on access time. If the drive were half full or more then I think it obvious that the results would be markedly different. I also wish they would post screen snapshots of the actual test runs. Indeed, a snapshot may reveal a problem, not just the numbers, but as it pertains to the media itself. These are just a few of the reasons why I never rely on results/conclusions published anywhere except on SR.
    Last edited by BWM; 08-14-2007 at 11:50 AM.

  5. #80
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,463

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Yeah, but you just plain can't put anywhere near that much data on a raptor. If performance is close up to the max capacity of the smaller drive I fail to see how it's a con to have the option to sacrifice a bit of performance if you need the extra space.

    Also, I've managed to get around many of the problems of decreasing performance as used space increases. I have a a directory where less accessed, or non-performance critical files go. I use JKDefrag to move this directory (which is about 80% of the space I use), out of the way, to the slowest part of the drive. I then defrag everything else with Perfectdisk, setting it to exlude my storage directory. Since very little in this directory is accessed frequently, it does not impact performance much (there is still some hit though).

    I've found some interesting defragmenting tests at x-bit labs that stress access time and transfer rates:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/sto...mentation.html
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/sto...rfectdisk.html

    I've used a few of the drives on the list and the conclusions closely match the "feel" I was getting from them. They also explain my aversion for my old GD raptors with hard numbers.

    The ADFD raptors do well, but they don't standout as much as they used to when compaired to newer drives.

    Quote Originally Posted by BMW
    These are just a few of the reasons why I never rely on results/conclusions published anywhere except on SR.
    Storage Review's own tests show that the new deskstars match or beat the fastest raptor model in many general usage and gaming tasks. When SR tests some other new and upcoming drives, the competition is likely to get even tougher.

  6. #81
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by oralpain View Post
    Yeah, but you just plain can't put anywhere near that much data on a raptor. If performance is close up to the max capacity of the smaller drive I fail to see how it's a con to have the option to sacrifice a bit of performance if you need the extra space.
    Where's the justification for using a gargantuan capacity drive for O/S and apps? That drive would be much better suited for use as a storage drive with content that is frequently accessed.

    Also, I've managed to get around many of the problems of decreasing performance as used space increases. I have a a directory where less accessed, or non-performance critical files go. I use JKDefrag to move this directory (which is about 80% of the space I use), out of the way, to the slowest part of the drive. I then defrag everything else with Perfectdisk, setting it to exlude my storage directory. Since very little in this directory is accessed frequently, it does not impact performance much (there is still some hit though).

    I've found some interesting defragmenting tests at x-bit labs that stress access time and transfer rates:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/sto...mentation.html
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/sto...rfectdisk.html

    I've used a few of the drives on the list and the conclusions closely match the "feel" I was getting from them. They also explain my aversion for my old GD raptors with hard numbers.
    Ah yes, but aren't these extra steps and studying of defrag methodologies and such really more of a work-around? Few users/owners are likely to understand the logic behind using these extra measures.

    The ADFD raptors do well, but they don't standout as much as they used to when compaired to newer drives.
    They most definitely do when the drive is used within an environment that they are designed for. One must understand the way their apps access a disk to make wise purchase decisions. IMHO, it is very unwise to use a large capacity drive for O/S and apps/games. But that's just me. I'd much rather use a raptor for that and large capacity drives for storage. If the nature of the files on a basic storage drive means they're likely to be accessed frequently then of course something like the big hitachi is very justifiable.

  7. #82
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    26

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poci View Post
    Remember the main reason I would want to put raptors in a gaming rig is to decrease map loading times
    Reality check here... I bet that going from one Raptor 150 to a pair of striped Raptor 150's might get you, what, 10% faster map loading times? You will always be saddled with diminishing returns.

    Let's see... six Raptor 150's at $200 each, plus a decent caching RAID controller (like an Areca ARC-1220) for $500: that's $1700 of hardware. Or just plop in two 32GB SSDs for less money, install your games on that, and watch it blow away every platter-based setup out there.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820147015

    Yes I know RAM plays a big part as well,heck right now with 4 gigz of RAM in my personal rig im one of the first to load a BF2 map
    So you're loading up these machines with a 64-bit OS then?

    but Im positive with raptors it would be even faster,I mean come on im still using an old IDE drive,benches at about 54 megs a second
    Map load times have very little to do with sequential read rates. If you are really building these for clients, why aren't you testing out different configurations? Start with a WD740ADFD, a WD1500ADFD and a WD7500AAKS. Clone your install to all of them, pull out your stopwatch, fire up different games, and see how the drives compare. Then buy a second one of each drive, RAID them together, and re-run your tests. Then you will have your answer.
    Last edited by taob; 08-18-2007 at 07:35 PM. Reason: Grammar fix

  8. #83
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,463

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by BWM View Post
    Where's the justification for using a gargantuan capacity drive for O/S and apps? That drive would be much better suited for use as a storage drive with content that is frequently accessed.
    I do agree that using a 1TB drive for just OS/apps is a waste. The drive would be fast enough, and probably hard to distinguish from a raptor, but it costs jsut as much as a raptor, and there are situations where the raptor may be noticeably faster.

    However, if we are talking about the single or dual platter versions of the largest drive, I'd day its quite justifiable to use for programs an apps even if you only use 5-10% of the drive. You would still have 90% of the performance of a raptor in this situation for 30-40% of the money.

    I currently use a seagate ST3250410AS as an OS and app drive (I also have a rarely accessed backup directory secluded out of the way on the rear of the drive), and it excels at this task, even though I'm not using any where near the drive's full capacity. I would have gotten a smaller drive, but they don't make any smaller drives with 250GB platters, and it would be very hard to improve on the $62.83 price point even if they did. In a pinch the "extra" space can be used to back up my other, identical, drive, should I need to reformat or replace it.

  9. #84
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,463

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    An article that I stumbled upon today that is basically saying the same:

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=322

    Now, the 150GB raptors would not be beat by a single platter 250GB drive by doing this, but the 74GB ones certainly would.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •