Printable View
Don't worry folks this isn't a 'Which should I buy?!' thread, it's just that lately I've been seeing users from various forums stating that 320GB platters offer Raptor speeds, and I find myself doubting this. I've had a quick search and all I can find is people making claims, no hard proof.
So fellow interwebbers, I open the floor up to you - can anyone run a few tests / find a direct comparison between the two so that we may settle this?
Thanks as always. :rockon2:
Nice thread :)
It's something I've wonderd about too. I'm looking to build a new box in the next couple of months and have toyed with the idea of a VelociRaptor, but given the rave reviews of the 320GB plater drives, a 650GB drive for £60 is mighty tempting.
I'd be interested in some definitive answers to this, too. The only significant difference I can see so far is the access time, so accessing lots of different files in a short space of time, the [V]Raptor would show its strength, but in a 'read/write a lot of data consecutively' test there would be far less difference...
I'd put my money on the VelociRaptor, although there's plenty of arguement that the VelociRaptor is overpriced for the margin of improvement it offers.
Don't forget however, that the VR is quieter, produces less heat and has lower power requirements.
I'm running a VR and have no regrets whatsoever.
No way the 320gb platters are as fast as velciraptors... they do give good performance compared to raptors in transfer speed (but not access time)...
And I'm sure that can be proven with benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiM
But my question would be what impact that has on real-world performance? As cotswoldcs said, it's the margin of improvement that interests me. Is the difference enough to justify the cost?
That, of course, is a subjective question. For me, the answer is "no, it doesn't".
Theres something somewhere about a full 120?GB Raptor versus a creativley partitioned 640GB WDAAKS with the same 120GB of data. I'd like to see this tested too :)
They do offer very similar performance, but only one model offers the most and thats the one I have :D its the seagate 320gb 7200.11 model, its not on par with a raptor, but considering it costs 4x less then a raptor it gives very close performance it only lags in access times mosty, and heres abenhcmark test to prove it:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/603
:thumbsup:Quote:
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 (ST3320613AS): This is the drive we recommend. It provides a burst and average transfer rates comparable to Western Digital VelociRaptor, but costing only ΒΌ of the price. As mentioned, if you can't find this drive buy Samsung HD322HJ or Western Digital Caviar SE16 instead.
Custom PC have done several reviews of 320Gb platter drives and in real world performance (loading levels in Crysis etc) the Velociraptor is effectively the same speed:
http://www.custompc.co.uk/reviews/21...ociraptor.html
Here's the review of the Velociraptor.
edit: the old Raptors are definitely slower than the big platters. Only the Velociraptor can keep up.
The 150GB Raptor is only slower in primarily slower sequential transfer tests (similarly, those 320GB platter drives are primarily faster in sequential transfers). In applications where random access is moderately important, the 3rd gen Raptor should manage to keep up if not outpace the latest 320GB drives.
The tomshardware HDD charts give a good range of benchmark comparisons.
You may need to click 'view all products' at the bottom before they'll show.
For the price, I don't think the performance gap equals the price gap on the current VelociRaptors.
im waiting the VelociRaptors to drop more in price... currently not worth the money for the performance increase imo
Why wait, just get a 640Gb drive. Same speed, quarter of the price, and double the storage.