Advice concerning hard drives

At the moment I have a high spec set up. 8GB 800mhz RAM with Quad Core 3.0ghz and 8600 graphics card.

The current hard drive I have Vista installed on is 2 or 4mb cache at the standard RPM. I think that this is holding my system back because all i can ever hear (louder than anything else in my pc) is the hard drive whirring.

Is it worth the price buying a 10k RPM hard drive to install Vista on? Have you got a 10k RPM hard drive and can you say it has boosted your system performance?

I appreciate ANY advice or experience people can share on this matter

Also I've been told by someone that two 7200RPM hard drives in RAID are substantially faster than a single 10K RPM hard drive, is this correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raverbaby

Also I've been told by someone that two 7200RPM hard drives in RAID are substantially faster than a single 10K RPM hard drive, is this correct?

---

I am sure others with more detailed knowledge will be along. But in the meantime...

If I recall raid is faster than one 10K Raptor. I used to have a 150GB Raptor and it made a significant difference in game load times. Never built a raid set up.

raid one might be faster for booting windows but there is also an increased chance of failure. if your board supports it use intel matrix raid with 3 samsung t166 drives and use the split raid 0 + raid 5 option and then put windows on the raid 0 part and anything inportant on the raid 5 part.. if you dont feel up to reinstalling windows there are a number of tweaks you can do to enhance performance of the windows bootup

well i'll only be putting my Vista and applications on to the 10k RPM drive or the RAID drive so losing data isn't much of an issue.

so all i'd need for a performance boost is RAID1 using two identical drives?

No raid 1 mirrors both drivers ie two identical drivers so no data will be lost but no performance boost.
Raid 0 speeds things up but no data protection.

So to speed things up you need two fast new identical drives as suggested by alsenior

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raverbaby

well i'll only be putting my Vista and applications on to the 10k RPM drive or the RAID drive so losing data isn't much of an issue.

so all i'd need for a performance boost is RAID1 using two identical drives?

---

Raptors are good :) Personally I would go for the raptor as a RAID 0 (what you want for performance) has twice the likeliness of failure and data loss.

RAID 1 will give you data redundancy but no performance increase.

Raid Defined - RAID Definitions Made Simple!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raverbaby

At the moment I have a high spec set up. 8GB 800mhz RAM with Quad Core 3.0ghz and 8600 graphics card.

The current hard drive I have Vista installed on is 2 or 4mb cache at the standard RPM. I think that this is holding my system back because all i can ever hear (louder than anything else in my pc) is the hard drive whirring.

Is it worth the price buying a 10k RPM hard drive to install Vista on? Have you got a 10k RPM hard drive and can you say it has boosted your system performance?

I appreciate ANY advice or experience people can share on this matter

---

About 3 years ago i had a Raptor. It was very quick but also very loud.

A 10K RPM HDD will boost system performance (slightly) but the noise will be the deciding factor as it will be louder.
or
RAID 0 a couple of HDD's and get the performance you are looking for (without the noise or forking out loads of cash).


(To be fair fella, you state you rig as 'high spec'.......its not. There very few that can claim that...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blitzen

About 3 years ago i had a Raptor. It was very quick but also very loud.

A 10K RPM HDD will boost system performance (slightly) but the noise will be the deciding factor as it will be louder.
or
RAID 0 a couple of HDD's and get the performance you are looking for (without the noise or forking out loads of cash).


(You state the system is 'high spec' but the card definitely isnt.)

---

I wouldn't say they're that loud. I had my 5 year old raptor running as an OS drive in the HDD caddy of my P180 open on my desk the other day and it wasn't really that loud. If you have a proper case you won't really notice your hard drive spinning up.

It sounds like the HDD the OP has at the moment is very old. Sounds like a 5400 rpm drive at best as I haven't seen 2/4mb cache drives widely on sale for years and years and years! Any 7200rpm and 16/32mb cache drive would be a huuuuge improvement and the raptor would be even better.

I'm curious about what the PC is used for as it seems high spec other than the 8600 which is definitely not high spec at all :)

I think the first point is how old is your drive? I've no expert, but i think 2 or 4mb cache drives are quite old, with the minimum these days at 8mb. Not sure how important cache itself is, but the bigger point is that drives themselves are getting better and better (read faster and faster) EDIT - i was obviously typing at the same time as 306Maxi...

The raptors are now quite old, and the only significant advantage they have is faster seek times (i.e. how quick it takes them to get to the bit of data they need), simply because they're spinning faster. With actual read/write times, I think the newer 7200 rpm have mostly caught them up. Of course the new 7200rpm ones are much cheaper and quieter than the raptors! It may be that just buying one of the samsung t166s that alsenior mentioned would make a difference. (i recently chose the 500gb t166 becuase i think it's a good price/performance/capacity ratio at the moment)

I'm sure i've seen a few articles saying raid 0 with 2 new drives is quicker than a single raptor (again, raptor may be ahead on seek times)

[QUOTE=alsenior;1320980]intel matrix raid with 3 samsung t166 drives and use the split raid 0 + raid 5 option and then put windows on the raid 0 part and anything inportant on the raid 5 part./QUOTE]

I've just set up a matrix raid with 2 samsung t166s. one half is raid 0, the other is raid 1. Working well so far, and the raid 0 does seem faster. There are articles out there saying for normal desktop use it makes no difference. However, you will also see lots of people saying (subjectively) it helps with things like game load times etc... I'm one of them!

What didn't occur to me is to use 3 drives rather than 2. Alsenior - can you set up a raid 0 with 3 drives them on the intel matrix system? (I'm on ich9r chipset). Is that noticeably quicker than with 2 drives?

OP - just noticed you're on vista. What "score" does the windows experience thingy give your hard drive?

(op - I was going to use your name but couldn't bring myself to type it)

As a baseline. My 36gb raptor with 16mb of cache gives a score of 5.3. The weakest point of my system according to Vista.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raverbaby

Also I've been told by someone that two 7200RPM hard drives in RAID are substantially faster than a single 10K RPM hard drive, is this correct?

---

Raid 0 will give faster data transfer rates (it is interleaved from two drives), but it will actually hurt latency (seek time) because both drives have to find the right sector before they can start reading, so there is double the chance that one of them will have some sort of minor jitter and introduce delay.

For booting, latency is more important than sustained data transfer rate, as the OS has to read lots of small files scattered over the disc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 306maxi

As a baseline. My 36gb raptor with 16mb of cache gives a score of 5.3. The weakest point of my system according to Vista.

---

I have 2x200gb Maxtor Diamondmax 10's and my Vista Score for those is 5.9.

Unfortunately though, this Vista score thing is pap.

In short, 2 things that make a drive "fast", seek time and throughput.
Seek time is how quickly a drive can locate a file, helps in games since a drive may have to access many files at any time, and may have to load objects/textures on the spot.
Throughput is more helpful with large file transfers.

Current drive performance is seriously lagging compared to RAM/CPU/GFX, so yes while a Raptor is generally faster (for games) than modern 7200rpm HDDs, the difference is absolutely minimal, however Raptors are more expensive per GB and the seeks are very audible.

I would get a 500GB Seagate 7200.11 32MB cache drive, it does have noticeably better throughput and although it is slightly slower in "gaming" performance, as mentioned in the bigger picture this difference isn't worth the premium you pay for a Raptor.

Oh, I have a 74GB 16MB cache Raptor, wish I never bought it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blitzen

I have 2x200gb Maxtor Diamondmax 10's and my Vista Score for those is 5.9.

Unfortunately though, this Vista score thing is pap.

---

For the enthusiast it's worthless. But if someone is saying "Why won't Crysis work at ultra setting on my high spec PC" and they have a Windows experience score of 2 then you can tell them that their PC is crap :)

I get a 5.9 for my 512mb X1950xt so apparently you can't get better than that :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 306maxi

For the enthusiast it's worthless. But if someone is saying "Why won't Crysis work at ultra setting on my high spec PC" and they have a Windows experience score of 2 then you can tell them that their PC is crap :)

I get a 5.9 for my 512mb X1950xt so apparently you can't get better than that :rolleyes:

---

Yep.......i think MS should drop it or use it to its full potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blitzen

Yep.......i think MS should drop it or use it to its full potential.

---

But it also gives you a clear indication that someone knows nothing about PC's if you see their Vista experience scores in their signature :confused:

I was fully expecting Microsoft to constantly update the scores so that 5.9 isn't always the maximum score because in a few years 5.9 will be the score a fairly middle range card. Perhaps they'll do something soon.

yep - my rig is not high spec to say the least and scores 5.9 for everything except cpu (and even my overclocked e2140 gets 5.6!). so yes, pap, but if the hard drive score is 2, gives an indication it really is behind.

I also thought the whole idea of setting it at 5.9 max was that they would in time increase and update it. (maybe sp1? haven't tried the beta)

(i'm starting to get an urge to watch spinal tap again, it must be lourder, it goes up to 11...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuckyNV

Oh, I have a 74GB 16MB cache Raptor, wish I never bought it ;)

---

I have a 36gb 16mb cache raptor and I'm very happy I bought it :p When I'm playing games they load up just that bit faster. Although 36gb is a big limitation. I have Vista, the orange box and not much else installed and I only have a few Gb left. So I think I might find myself buying another raptor soonish.

I just wish Seagate would try and make a fight of it and make some 10k desktop drives as this would help push the price of the raptors down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GaryRW

yep - my rig is not high spec to say the least and scores 5.9 for everything except cpu (and even my overclocked e2140 gets 5.6!). so yes, pap, but if the hard drive score is 2, gives an indication it really is behind.

I also thought the whole idea of setting it at 5.9 max was that they would in time increase and update it. (maybe sp1? haven't tried the beta)

(i'm starting to get an urge to watch spinal tap again, it must be lourder, it goes up to 11...)

---

ROFL.

What spec is the hard drive? That's a really crap score!

Just checked the G/F's PC and her 250gb Seagate gives a score of 5.4.

If disk drive performance really IS that critical for you, you might want to look at a SCSI drive or SAS drive, some of which have rotational speeds of 15,000 RPM - with noise and heat output to match. However you will need a high performance SCSI or SAS card, which in itself - before the drives - won't be cheap. How much is performance worth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

If disk drive performance really IS that critical for you, you might want to look at a SCSI drive or SAS drive, some of which have rotational speeds of 15,000 RPM - with noise and heat output to match. However you will need a high performance SCSI or SAS card, which in itself - before the drives - won't be cheap. How much is performance worth?

---

Yep but price normally is an issue however.

The best solution for you to alivate the slownesss of the hard drive you have if your motherboard supports it is to buy 2 WD 1500AFD non Raptor X, they are just for show (clear glass window) and raid them in Raid 0 config. Keep all your saved data on your old drive as backup.

Use something like Acronis if you want to keep a good backup. I personally have 2 Raptors in raid0 and 4 Atlas 15k II on Perc 4/dc Pci-e card also in Raid0. The SCSI's are supremely better for my usage of my computer, but for sheer value the Raptors are superb. Even individually they are a good upgrade.

Check out storagereview.com and the hard drive performance tables. The Raptors lead a lot of the SCSI drives that cost way more. BTW noise is not an issue with the Raptors or the Samsung they are quite IMO.

If price is an issue otherwise consider the Samsung Spinpoint HD501LJ T166 500GB 16mb cache
at around £60. They are fast for what they are and have beaten Raptors in certain game loadings, I have one in a Qnap ts109pro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 306maxi

What spec is the hard drive? That's a really crap score!

---

Sorry - just an example score. I should've made it clear when I first suggested the whole experience score thingy that I have no idea what the range of scores are. (We should start a new competition - what's the worst experience score you've been able to get...)

my point was just that if the OP's drive scores really low on the experience score, then (i think!) it's a clear indication it really needs an upgrade

Bah I'm still asleep. DIdn't read your post properly :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GaryRW

The raptors are now quite old, and the only significant advantage they have is faster seek times (i.e. how quick it takes them to get to the bit of data they need), simply because they're spinning faster. With actual read/write times, I think the newer 7200 rpm have mostly caught them up. Of course the new 7200rpm ones are much cheaper and quieter than the raptors! It may be that just buying one of the samsung t166s that alsenior mentioned would make a difference. (i recently chose the 500gb t166 becuase i think it's a good price/performance/capacity ratio at the moment)

I'm sure i've seen a few articles saying raid 0 with 2 new drives is quicker than a single raptor (again, raptor may be ahead on seek times)

---

The 73gb are quite old but the 150GB Raptors are not and they are by far the best performance hard drives out at present. Again check out performance tables at storagereview.com.

With regard thrashing of hard drive in Vista, its a known thing check if you have unwanted services running, and Google Thrashing hard drives in Vista it might enlighten you that it may be the OS not so much your old hard drive.

I like storage review, but a lot has changed recently and they are slow to update their reviews and tables.

Raptors are still king when it comes to raw, relative, access times, but there are 7200 rpm drives that leave them in the dust where raw transfer rates are concerned, and even a handful of 7200rpm drives that are faster for most uses (including gaming).

Both WD and Samsung are releasing some very impressive looking 7200rpm drives with massive platter sizes. Other companies will follow shortly.

It won't be more than 6-12 months before the currently existing raptors are out-classed in nearly every way by 7200rpm drives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oralpain

I like storage review, but a lot has changed recently and they are slow to update their reviews and tables.

Raptors are still king when it comes to raw, relative, access times, but there are 7200 rpm drives that leave them in the dust where raw transfer rates are concerned, and even a handful of 7200rpm drives that are faster for most uses (including gaming).

Both WD and Samsung are releasing some very impressive looking 7200rpm drives with massive platter sizes. Other companies will follow shortly.

It won't be more than 6-12 months before the currently existing raptors are out-classed in nearly every way by 7200rpm drives.

---

Probably progress lol but they still are king for SATA performance. Storagereview do take a time updating I know. I have 2 Raptors in Raid0 with sustained 132mb transfer burst about 250 I think, against the 4 scsi at 200mb sustained and burst 360-400 odd. I yhave allways been a SCSI person but the Raptors are good value against SCSI, but maybe not so good value against high capacity SATA drives now appearing.

Quote:

---

What didn't occur to me is to use 3 drives rather than 2. Alsenior - can you set up a raid 0 with 3 drives them on the intel matrix system? (I'm on ich9r chipset). Is that noticeably quicker than with 2 drives?

---

Apparently you can it would be best to consult your manual though.im looking through the product manual now
Edit: you can only do it with 4 drives

One of the problem is that the OP didn't specify what applications s/he is running. Does the HD thrashes all the time? If so, then there might be a problem with the system.

The fact that you can hear the HD seeking noise is no indication that the HD is holding the system back anymore than it would with another HD/RAID setup. Any HD will have to seek when loading applications, audibly or not (except perhaps SSD drives). For what it's worth, I find the Raptor to be noisier than the most quiet 7200 RPM drives currently available, but also quieter than other 7200 RPM drives: my Hitachi is louder on idle, and my Seagate much louder on seek.

RAID-0 and a faster single HD will improve performance in different aspects. RAID-0 will improve applications where sequential transfer rate is important (e.g. Windows loading, extracting a single large archive, video editing). A modern 10k RPM HD will typically be faster where random access is important (e.g. copying lots of smaller files, most games loading time, and pretty much anything that does not fall into sequential transfers - even though in many cases, it's faster in areas where you won't notice).

When running applications where RAID-0 provides an improvement, adding more drives (e.g. 4) should yield additional performance. But for everything else, it will do absolutely nothing (technically, there is even the cost of an overhead). So it's important to find out what HD intensive applications you need to run (to make it more complicated, many applications are neither purely sequential nor random in their read/write e.g. they may write medium sized block here then there). Personally, I favour a 10k RPM + a 7200 RPM storage drive approach vs two 7200 RPM drives in RAID-0 for my use. RAID-0 advocates will disagree. It's pretty much an endless debate where there is probably no absolute truth.

What is kind of interesting is to look at some of the cheaper SSDs out there (very low access time but with only 30MB or so sustained transfer rate). From a number of reviews I've seen Googling around, the Raptor demolishes them in transfer rate intensive tasks, not unlike how 2x 7200 RPM drives do the same to Raptors for those very tasks, yet there are instances where those drives beat the Raptor (again, the very tasks where the Raptor would beat RAID-ed 7200 drives).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blitzen

(To be fair fella, you state you rig as 'high spec'.......its not. There very few that can claim that...)

---

In terms of what I want of it, it is. I work exclusively with audio editing and production in my own self proclaimed capacity.

thanks for all the comments and advice so far guys. I'm intrigued, why are people referring to me as 'OP' as oppose to Raverbaby?

I should have stated in my post, i'll be exclusively using audio editing and production related applications. No gaming, hence why 8600 is 'high spec' for the set up.

The drive i have the OS installed on is apprxoimately 3-4 years old. And the noise really irritates me.

So perhaps, for a budget of £50 what's the fastest (and relatively silent) hard drive that I can buy? Drive capacity can be anything as low as 40gb, i already have 2TB of hard drive space for non-OS stuff.

OP stands for "original person" i.e. the person who started the thread.

I've got a 36gb Raptor and its the noisiest thing i've ever heard in a PC, i've got a Coolermaster Cosmos case which stores its HDD's in caddies that are sound proofed with rubber gromets to isolate the drives from the case to stop vibration and you can still hear the Raptor when the head is shooting across the disk. It sounds a little like hail falling on a tin roof when doing the random access test in HDTACH.

Now the Samsung Spinpoint 501LJ 500GB £65 drive i recently put in is practically inaudible in this case even when running HDTACH to benchmark the drive. The Raptor you can hear from the other side of my flat ( I'm not exaggerating) when doing the same benchmark, the Spinpoint you can only hear if the room is quiet and you stick your ear a foot or two away from the case. The Spinpoint benches at 90mb a sec down to 45mb at its slowest, the Raptor goes from 65mb a sec down to 45mb a sec.

@raverbaby (I use 'OP for 'original poster' simply because it is quicker to type - no offense intended :)): I remember now, you made that post in the Scan board about whether to go 8GB of RAM or no didn't you?

If you want to give a good, relatively modern 7200 RPM drive a go, and are willing to add another £10 to your budget, then look into the 500 GB Western Digital AAKS. For £50 you can have a Samsung T166 (maybe - if you look hard enough). In practice, they are both excellent drives: the AAKS is a bit faster yet quiet, the T166 slightly quieter yet fast.

What you may want to do, is to partition the first, say, ~£100GB of the drive (or even a bit less) and use this partition for transfer rate intensive applications (i.e. anything that you find is causing your current HD to trash). The first partition created uses the outer edge of the drive, and tend to perform better than the inner end.

I had 2 7200rpm drives in raid 0 in the past, quite a noticeable improvement in performance.but i'd say mainly in large data transfers, and loading times for game (large data).