I was thinking about getting one of the WD Raptor drives, and wanted to know if anyone had any opinions on the 10k rpm. Is the speed difference obvious? Anyone had any problems with them?

5/17/2006 1:26:50 PM

definately worth it for OS drive

5/17/2006 1:32:09 PM

Gotcha. Yeah, 74G seemed a little small for a HD now..

5/17/2006 1:38:36 PM

^ yes, that is true, but don't go buy a 250GB 10k rpm drive. Get a 10k drive big enough for the OS and program files, etc. Then go buy a 7200rpm 250GB drive for music, videos, backup, etc

5/17/2006 2:14:08 PM

It might help if there was actually a 10k rpm SATA drive in existance

The Raptor line is up at 150gb now, get that, its faster than the 74 and provides enough storage to be used without buying a secondary storage drive.

5/17/2006 2:46:42 PM

Quote :

"It might help if there was actually a 10k rpm SATA drive in existance "

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?N=2010150014+1035507821+1035907918&Submit=ENE&SubCategory=14

What are those then? Serial ATA150 is still SATA, just not SATA II.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2006 3:17:44 PM

He's going to make some partially true comment about the drive not being true 10k or something, you watch.

5/17/2006 3:27:31 PM

I think maybe he'll mention that newegg uses SATA to refer to SATA II and Serial ATA150 to refer to SATA/150, even though they're both "SATA." Are we taking bets?

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 3:29 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2006 3:29:32 PM

we've got a bunch of 146GB 10K and some 15K SAS drives in our test lab, SAS drives are basically a SCSI drive with a SATA connection

5/17/2006 3:31:01 PM

are those the serial attatchable SCSI's? I wasn't really sure what those were, never used any.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2006 3:33:54 PM

Quote :

"I think maybe he'll mention that newegg uses SATA to refer to SATA II and Serial ATA150 to refer to SATA/150, even though they're both "SATA." Are we taking bets?"

Whoa, maybe I am out of the loop a little here, can you update me on this specification jargon.

Last I left off, there was SATA and SATAII, one having theoretical speed X, that is SATA = 150mb/s?, and the other having speed Y, or SATAII = 300mb/s.

Whats the deal yo?

5/17/2006 3:38:05 PM

whoops! Shit I forgot to throw 250gb in there

It SHOULD have read:

"It might help if there was actually a 10k rpm 250GB SATA drive in existance"

Thanks for jumping on me quick guys

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2006 3:43:54 PM

Haha, you know you'd do the same, but yeah it seemed like that's what you meant anyways.

^^ Yeah, SATA I = Serial ATA150 or SATA150
SATA II = SATA300 or Serial ATA300


[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2006 3:58:47 PM

SAS drives are Serial Attached SCSI, and SAS controllers work with both SAS drives and regular SATA drives (they use the same SATA plug). I've got a SuperMicro machine at my feet with an onboard 8 channel SAS controller with 8 250GB 7.2K SATAII drives hooked up to it.

5/17/2006 4:34:53 PM

i have the 74GB raptor and definitly notice a huge difference, i use it for OS, apps, & games. storage is best kept on a larger & more affordable drive

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ,]

5/17/2006 6:36:37 PM

Quote :

"i have the 74GB raptor and definitly notice a huge difference, i use it for OS, apps, & games. storage is best kept on a larger & more affordable drive"

5/17/2006 6:41:48 PM

hey, talking about raptors, anyone there using the 15k ones? are they safe and/or worth it? ($$$)

5/17/2006 7:24:22 PM

Clearly they aren't safe to use.

5/18/2006 9:53:19 AM

^ haha

anything that runs at 15K is clearly Enterprise class, meant for continuous usage, 24/7/356 type shit

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 11:13 AM. Reason : and costs $texas]

5/18/2006 11:13:13 AM

I use 2x of the 36GB Raptors in RAID 0 for my OS. It's definatly noticable and well worth it IMO

5/18/2006 1:40:14 PM

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why hasn't the speed increased to 10k for all HDs? It seems like the technology has been around for a little while. Is there something stopping the transition?

5/19/2006 12:23:23 PM

Quote :

"24/7/356 type shit"

hard drives get holidays?

^ unnecessary for 99% of users? i ask that question of all types of computer-related stuff - ex.) why aren't mini-usb plugs the new usb plug if they're smaller and just as fast?

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ?]

5/19/2006 12:25:30 PM

^ hahaha, dont you know? HDs get that 2.47% downtime per year, LOL

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 12:53 PM. Reason : fat fingered the numbers]

5/19/2006 12:52:45 PM

Quote :

"unnecessary for 99% of users?"

What?

That is really pretty fucking dumb when you think about it, especially considering the hard drive is the biggest bottleneck. You're also bascically saying that only about 1% of the PC owning population are gamers, since that is probably the group that can use it the most.

5/19/2006 1:03:02 PM

Quote :

"hard drives get holidays?"

Actually, yes. Most non-enterprise level hard drives are NOT intended to be run 24/7/365.

Quote :

"Maybe this is a dumb question, but why hasn't the speed increased to 10k for all HDs? It seems like the technology has been around for a little while. Is there something stopping the transition?"

Not a dumb question, but there are some good reasons why it's not the standard. 7200rpm drives have only really become standard issue in the past year or so, and they offer the best compromise between storage capactiy, speed and cost.

In moving to 10k rpm, you have to have fewer platters at higher densities. And doing that reliably drives up the cost a LOT.

Look at the cost difference between a 300gb 7200rpm drive and a 150gb 10k drive. The 10k drive costs 3 times as much for half the space and a 15-20% peformance increase. For the average consumer PC, there's just no way you can justify that kind of expense.

Quote :

"why aren't mini-usb plugs the new usb plug if they're smaller and just as fast?"

For the same reason EVERY adapter isn't tiny as hell. Tiny adapters are much easier to break. They are also a lot more difficult for impaired users to operate. Also the standard USB size is designed to be stacked, whereas mini-usb isnt, again adding to the whole "harder to break" thing and keeping everything more tidy.

5/19/2006 1:16:06 PM