hilarious flash animation from hitachi
http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_head/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 1:24 PM. Reason : flash]

10/13/2006 1:23:56 PM

that's seriously about 2 years old

10/13/2006 1:28:42 PM

How does the performance of the perp drives compare to the Raptors?

Basically, I am running a W2K box with an Athlon 64 processor, 2 gigs dual channel 512Mx4 (and yes they run at ddr400 with slightly relaxed timings) and a sluggish most likley ata133 OS drive.

I'm thinking about buying an X2 processor and a new drive (maybe raptor) and either going to XP or something like Unbuntu. The thing that has prevented me from upgrading thus far is all I really do with my current machine is browse the web, play tunes, and watch TV shows. For awhile, I was ripping my DVD and CD collection to disk, but I don't have that task any more.

Will I see a worthwhile speedup from boot to opening windows and doing a few differnet things at once to warrant the 2-400 dollars for these new components?

10/13/2006 2:38:38 PM

I dont think you get that much real-life performance boost out of these.

The tech was mostly developed to enable more storage in the same sized drives.

10/13/2006 2:55:14 PM

Closer spaced bits means for a given RPM, more bits are read in a given amount of time.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060418-6622.html

Quote :

"Along with increasing the sheer number of bits that can be stuffed into a hard drive's phone booth, perpendicular recording also should provide performance benefits as well. Since the bits are packed more tightly on the drive platter, data can be read more quickly given the same rotation speed. In addition, seek times for certain searches should drop, resulting in a lower average measurement."

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/29/seagate_750_gb_barracuda_enters_the_big_league/page9.html

Quote :

"This is where we may begin to see some benefit from the perpendicular recording process. In terms of read transfer rates, of these three drives the Seagate has one of the most impressive scores, surpassing all contenders save the Raptor WD1500AD."

10/13/2006 3:20:00 PM

right... theoretically

notice I prefaced my statement with "real-life"


similar to the way RAID arrays kick major ass in benchmarks, but don't really do all that much to boost your day-to-day performance.

10/13/2006 3:43:10 PM

I'd go with two perp drives in raid, and forget the raptors. way more storage and negligable performance difference for desktop use

10/13/2006 3:46:44 PM

if you want the max speed/storage for the price than yes.

only problems w/ RAID is a lot more likely chance for corruption of data, when that happens it's harder to recover, increased wear/tear on two drives instead of one, and increased CPU utilization (tho minimal)... and that's why i have both the raptor and a RAID array, i'd rather have one hard drive for the OS and use RAID for gaming, video, swap, temp/storage.

and fyi, this thread wasn't about the perpendicular technology 'per say' but about the animation... if this animation is 2 years old, sorry.

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ..]

10/13/2006 4:45:20 PM

yo, I'm pretty sure a Raptor spanks the fuck out of any SATA drive featuring perpendicular recording currently available. I was pretty sure of it before I just wasted 15 minutes reading benchmarks, but now I'm damn sure. The 150GB Raptor would have noticably (as in, so much so, that it was noticable to the user) superior performance undergoing certain access patterns (most commonly, booting the OS), and statistically greater performance in virtually every metric but capacity. The 10K spindle RPM results in a lower rotational latency, which directly results in greater random I/O performance. For what it's worth, the 150GB Raptor also has a significantly higher peak linear transfer rate (well over 80MB/sec) than any SATA* perpendicular drive I've seen (60-70 MB/sec) on account of the 10K speed and in spite of it's lower areal density.

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 7:51 PM. Reason : *the Cheetah 15K.5 with perpendicular recording, on the other hand, is a beast at 135MB/sec ]

10/13/2006 7:49:24 PM

noen and i were referring to RAID 0 array, not just one perpendicular drive.

in my benchmarks the raid array won every area but random access, with 7.8ms, my raptor nearly halfed my raid array (13ms)

[Edited on October 14, 2006 at 12:04 AM. Reason : 0]

10/14/2006 12:03:34 AM

lol wait, a serious discussion of the merits of a RAID-0 volume as primary data storage is occuring?

good luck with that guys

RAID-1, RAID-5, or single disk volumes... if you don't believe me now, please imagine a little me on your shoulder laughing his ass off when do you do (and you will)

10/14/2006 12:08:47 PM

I don't see the problem with a raid-0 array.

10/14/2006 5:15:30 PM

^ as your primary storage, a non-backed up RAID0 will double your chance of losing all your data from a single HDD failure.

10/14/2006 5:30:58 PM

2+1

10/14/2006 6:21:20 PM

i use the raptor for primary means of storage, not RAID 0, for the same reasons i posted earlier, read carefully.

10/14/2006 10:45:50 PM

Has anyone ever seen a Raptor drive on rebate, or sale?

10/17/2006 2:11:22 PM

i doubt most of you do anything that would warrant a raptor

10/17/2006 2:20:50 PM

they gots to gets to their pr0n and that armor upgrade before anyone else!

10/17/2006 2:27:06 PM

Yea, but I have money to burn and I want the fastest shit.

10/17/2006 3:10:00 PM

you have a g/f now. how is it possible you have money to burn!

10/17/2006 3:24:37 PM

[Edited on October 17, 2006 at 3:26 PM. Reason : nope]

10/17/2006 3:26:11 PM

Quote :

"Has anyone ever seen a Raptor drive on rebate, or sale?"

I'm waiting on a rebate back on my Raptor.

10/17/2006 5:39:31 PM

yes, i got my 74gb for $129 or something when they had $20 off on a rebate (or something close i think)... msrp is $149 so that sounds right.

i totally use my raptor on a regular basis for gaming/graphics/video

10/17/2006 11:44:41 PM

you know for the amount of time people talk about how long boot up takes, i would think everyone was still running winme and crashign ever 5 minutes

10/19/2006 7:51:17 AM