hard drive seagate 500gb

[this_is_gav]

will two 7200.11 in raid0 out perform a single raptor card

Out perform a Raptor doing what?

[Thorsson]

People have missed two important factors:

1. The Seagates have 32Mb cache, and previous benchmarks on such drives have shown that even singly they can push the Raptors in many areas; and
2. You get a hell of a lot more storage on the Seagates.

[TooNice]

Didn't miss them. But pointing out that Seagates have 32MB cache is about as relevant has pointing out that Raptors has a much lower seek. The question is, how much do those translate to application level performance?

And of course the Seagate has more storage, I would not consider any of those high performing 7200 RPM drive to be 'good value' if it weren't for the capacity. Still, how much space do you need for your Windows/application drives?

[Thorsson]

Didn't miss them. But pointing out that Seagates have 32MB cache is about as relevant has pointing out that Raptors has a much lower seek. The question is, how much do those translate to application level performance?

And of course the Seagate has more storage, I would not consider any of those high performing 7200 RPM drive to be 'good value' if it weren't for the capacity. Still, how much space do you need for your Windows/application drives?

1. That's benchmark performance, NOT application.

2. Your second point seems like dumb logic to me. Not good value if it weren't for the capacity? WTF does that mean? If they didn't have the capacity they wouldn't cost as much. Moreover, as has been shown here, if we took the outer 150Gb of the Seagate as the app/OS partition, then the performance is superior to the disk as a whole. Put two 75Gb partitions in RAID0 and we have even better performance and 850Gb of additional storage for the same price as the Raptor. With a better warranty and less noise.

And I seriously question whether 150Gb is sufficient for anyone with a high spec PC for gaming use.

I won't deny that if you seriously wish to burn money, then 2x150Gb Raptors in RAID0 plus a Hitachi 1Tb will outperform this. But I wouldn't pay this amount for what amounts to mere willy waving.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Still, how much space do you need for your Windows/application drives?

ALOT. i just reformat my 160gb hdd a couple of weeks ago and its full already.

[this_is_gav]

And I seriously question whether 150Gb is sufficient for anyone with a high spec PC for gaming use.

And this is why the majority of computer cases come with more than 1 3.5" internal bay.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Out perform a Raptor doing what?

speed, ie loading windows, applications and games

[Shooty*]

I've got 50 gb left on my 300gb game drive.

70 gb left on my 300gb media drive (comics, videos, music, photos, etc)

1gb left on my 500gb system drive after a "clean" Vista install.


(the last one is a joke. But like all good jokes, has the ring of truth about it )

[TooNice]

1. That's benchmark performance, NOT application.

They are benchmarks based on actual 'real' applications. Unless you do not consider the list of applications in their office/content creation suite to be real applications.

Not good value if it weren't for the capacity? WTF does that mean? Moreover, as has been shown here, if we took the outer 150Gb of the Seagate as the app/OS partition, then the performance is superior to the disk as a whole.

It simply means that 7200 drives provide vastly more GB for the £ than the Raptor - enough to make up for the performance which I do deem inferior to the Raptor under most desktop environment.
Yes, the outer edge of the drives offer better sequential read/write. It does work wonders for a number of applications, and it is a practice I use myself, but it does not translate to all round superior performance (unless, again, you equate sequential read/write to 'overall performance').

With a better warranty and less noise.

Same warranty. Not that it matters - a longer warranty does not give me the confidence of not backing up my data, YMMV. And given that a single ES.2 is only 0.5db quieter, I question I wonder if having two is going to offer less noise. I can't speak for the ES.2/7200.11, but I know my 7200.10 has a louder seek to my Raptor.

And I seriously question whether 150Gb is sufficient for anyone with a high spec PC for gaming use.

Josh has spoken, so I guess the point is moot (if 160GB is not enough now, then 150GB is not the way to go - unless you can afford two of them). Frankly speaking, I find myself needing no more than 80GB for my system/game/app drive. Perhaps I am the odd one out on this. I know don't uninstall every single games I've ever played but I don't keep them all either.

But I wouldn't pay this amount for what amounts to mere willy waving.

I always found the term 'willy waving' unnecessarily derogatory and it's usage rather ironic on an enthusiast forum. It's not like there is a trend of people bragging about how their "L33t PC with 16GB RAM, 4x SSD RAID-0 + 8x 1TB Hitachi, 4x 8800 SLi with hit 2x Quad Core@ 5Ghz on a modded Vaporchill @ -250C" can own a more sensibly priced PC. Interestingly enough, it's the opposite. Despite not seeing anyone bragging about their PC, simple possession of something one might consider to be poor value is automatically 'willy waving'.

speed, ie loading windows, applications and games

For Windows loading, RAID-0 is unquestionably faster.

Applications, it depends what applications, something that involves a lot of sequential read/write, especially larger files, will definitely benefit a lot from it (e.g. working with videos). Other applications gain some benefits which may or may not be enough to put it in front of a single Raptor. There are also very rare occasions that there is zero gain, and even loss from the overhead (i.e. cases which are highly reliant on non sequential read/write).

I find that the gains in gaming are consistently low. Faster than a single drive, but not faster than a Raptor.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

ahh i see. can you split a 500gb into two partitions and raid0 them? im thinking of getting another 500gb hdd, do something like that for windows apps and games, and then use the one im getting now just for storage

[this_is_gav]

For Windows loading, RAID-0 is unquestionably faster.

Raptors would be of more benefit for an OS than 2 7,200rpm drives RAIDed. The benefit of RAID0 in general usage is extremely limited. You can RAID0 together 5 devices but the access time will still only be as good as the slowest drive. Sequential transfers is where RAID0 shines, as you also say.

[TooNice]

I do share the not universally agreed opinion that a Raptor makes a better OS drive overall. Yet as far as XP startup is concerned (and I presume Vista), RAID-0 of two 7200 drive can work out faster. XP takes good advantage of sequential performance.

[this_is_gav]

I've use RAID0 on my machines both at home and at work with a variety of applications and it just doesn't make any noticeable difference. It's all down to access times. Single Raptors are much more effective (though obviously not as efficient if you consider the price per GB).

[j.o.s.h.1408]

how fast are a raptor though. is it enought to warrent the price tag? i mean is it double the speed of a normal 7200?

[GSte]

how fast are a raptor though. is it enought to warrent the price tag? i mean is it double the speed of a normal 7200?

Nowhere near double the speed, an example from gaming is that in Battlefield 2 multi-player, the levels load up a couple of seconds faster on a Raptor than a standard drive.