Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 84
  1. #31
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,463

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    My mistake, I was unaware of the that ADFD modle.

    My points stand for the 36.7 and 74GB GDs.

  2. #32
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,553

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by oralpain View Post
    Go back and look at the original raptor benchmarks if you don't believe what I have said; try and find a single test (real world or pseudo realworld) that shows them beating any desktop perpendicular recording 7,200rpm drive.

    They were fast 3 years ago, they are seriously showing their age now.
    That's true in terms of STR, but we all now that NO 7200 rpm drive even approaches raptor seek/access time. None...

  3. #33
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,463

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    As some one that has owned two of the GD raptors, I strongly disagree, when it comes to practical/real-world use.

  4. #34
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,553

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by oralpain View Post
    My mistake, I was unaware of the that ADFD modle.

    My points stand for the 36.7 and 74GB GDs.

  5. #35
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Northern UT
    Age
    69
    Posts
    4,506

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by oralpain View Post
    try and find a single test (real world or pseudo realworld) that shows them beating any desktop perpendicular recording 7,200rpm drive.

    They were fast 3 years ago, they are seriously showing their age now.
    Go here:

    http://www.storagereview.com/Testbed4Compare.sr

    and pick out any number of tests and you'll find the raptor at or near the top, usually behind only the scsi 15K drives.

    I can certainly locate other sites that show raptors topping or matching the competition.

    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

  6. #36
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,553

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    For those who haven't seen a head-to-head between the old and new 74 gig raptors. The same comparison holds true for the 36 gig models as well.




  7. #37
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,553

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by alex666 View Post
    Go here:

    http://www.storagereview.com/Testbed4Compare.sr

    and pick out any number of tests and you'll find the raptor at or near the top, usually behind only the scsi 15K drives.

    I can certainly locate other sites that show raptors topping or matching the competition.

    marty
    SR is unquestionably the most authoritative and credible source out there.

  8. #38
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,463

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by alex666 View Post
    Go here:

    http://www.storagereview.com/Testbed4Compare.sr

    and pick out any number of tests and you'll find the raptor at or near the top, usually behind only the scsi 15K drives.

    I can certainly locate other sites that show raptors topping or matching the competition.

    marty
    Ironically, these are exactly the benchmarks (and site) I was refering to.

    Now find SRs GD raptor benchmarks, then compare them to SRs newest benchmarks, like the WD 750GB, or hitachi 1TB drives they just reviewed.

    Of course the raptors are going to win when compared with older drives that were new when the raptors were released.

    I like StorageReview, but they are usually a bit behind when it comes to reviewing new drives. And they don't often review the more obscure "refresh" models.
    Last edited by oralpain; 08-11-2007 at 02:58 PM.

  9. #39
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Chicago subs
    Posts
    1,447

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    This is always a good read, since it not only shows a bunch of "real world" tests, it shows how minute an advantage a drive needs to best another and garner a reputation as the best drive. There aren't any 30% improvements to be found in the real world test parts, though I'm not saying it couldn't happen.

  10. #40
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    In bed with one of my avatar AMD girls :D
    Age
    39
    Posts
    8,876

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by oralpain View Post
    36GB ones have been discontinued for some time.

    Why would you want them anyway? Go back and look at the original raptor benchmarks if you don't believe what I have said; try and find a single test (real world or pseudo realworld) that shows them beating any desktop perpendicular recording 7,200rpm drive.

    They were fast 3 years ago, they are seriously showing their age now.
    Umm,benchmarks Ive seen show raptors beating a 7200 RPM drive.
    And if thats diferent now please show me and explain to me how a 7200 drive can beat a 10000 RPM one

  11. #41
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,463

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by tuskenraider View Post
    This is always a good read, since it not only shows a bunch of "real world" tests, it shows how minute an advantage a drive needs to best another and garner a reputation as the best drive. There aren't any 30% improvements to be found in the real world test parts, though I'm not saying it couldn't happen.
    A good read yes, but it's 18 months old.

    Anyway, I have traced much (though not all) of the performance descrepancy I saw in random access between my raptors and the revised segate 7200.10s to NCQ (which matters a lot in multitasking and defraging), that the GDs did not have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poci View Post
    Umm,benchmarks Ive seen show raptors beating a 7200 RPM drive.
    And if thats diferent now please show me and explain to me how a 7200 drive can beat a 10000 RPM one
    The exact same way a 10000rpm drive can be faster than a 10000 rpm drive, or how a 7200 can be faster than another 7200rpm drive.

    Beating "a" 7200 rpm drive, or most 7200rpm drives, is not beating all 7200 rpm drives. Beating alll 7200 rpm drives from 10 years, 3 years, or even 1 year ago is far from beating the newest, fastest 7200rpm drives.

    One of the largest factors in drive performance is areal density. The more densely sectors are placed on a harddrive, the more of them pass under the read/write heads at any given rpm, and the closer data is likely to be to the current track in actual space.

    The newest 7200 rpm drives have several times the areal density of even the ADFD raptors. This is why they are so close in performance (raptors win some tests, the newest 7200 win just as many if not more), even with the difference in spindle speed.

    Take a look at the performance of the perpendicular recording 7200rpm drives in SRs latest review: http://www.storagereview.com/WD7500AAKS.sr

    SR hasn't even tested the newest 250GB platter drives yet. They are even faster than the 7K1000 in many areas.

  12. #42
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    In bed with one of my avatar AMD girls :D
    Age
    39
    Posts
    8,876

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Hmm intresting,logically areal density should matter.
    Ok so what about the new raptors?Are they still inferior to a newer 7200 drive?
    And in any case I would think WD is going to make even newer raptors,this time with SATA2 interface maybe?

  13. #43
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Northern UT
    Age
    69
    Posts
    4,506

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poci View Post
    Hmm intresting,logically areal density should matter.
    Ok so what about the new raptors?Are they still inferior to a newer 7200 drive?
    And in any case I would think WD is going to make even newer raptors,this time with SATA2 interface maybe?
    If you look at that review oral is referring to, the raptor 150 does extremely well. Certainly not outdated technology.

    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

  14. #44
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,553

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    SATA 2 is just an interface spec. No drive in existence crowds 150 let alone 300. And once again, please don't discount/ignore the raptors most blaringly obvious advantage, access time. No 7200 rpm drive approaches it. Now it is true that access time isn't as important in a typical desktop PC running windows. But it most certainly IS in some cases, and is ALWAYS a key factor, even more so, in true enterprise/server duty. Try putting raptors in a true unix workstation for engineering work after having lived with 7200 rpm drives until recently. No comparison whatsoever.

  15. #45
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,553

    Re: 6X Raptors overkill?

    No one in this thread has recognized the single most important thing that determines a drive's performance in a windows desktop PC. That is NOT access time, not STR, not spindle speed. It is the CACHE, more specifically, the algorithm that governs how it works. All modern drives use dynamic sizing and segmentation of the cache, as executed by the drive's own imbedded controller. THAT is what accounts for the lion's share of the differences in the rankings seen on several websites, and this factor is not reflected in any benchmark except for application based benchmarks.

    Someone has already said that this is not particularly important in a simple storage drive, and this is very true. But for an operating system and applications drive, a drive's caching, more than anything else, characterizes a drives overall performance. The larger the cache, the more freedom the engineers have to even further tweak/tune/optomize the cache for performance. And that is exactly what they do, afterall, windows most certainly does utterly dominate the 7200 rpm drive market. Of all commonly used operating systems, windows is the most bloated and thus best able to take advantage of drive tweaking.
    Last edited by BWM; 08-11-2007 at 06:03 PM.

Posting Permissions

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