Are Raptors THAT Loud?

[KD28]

Thinking of getting a raptor 150 as my primary drive. Wondering if they are really THAT loud. I have the p182 with all 3 fans running on the medium setting. Think I would hear the drive?

[enginurd]

If you have any drives that have loud seek noises, then you know what a raptor sounds like. I can't hear mine since my tower is under my desk. Though, Raptors aren't worth their price, IMO...

Avg Transfer Rate, Access Time: HDD info, Price I paid (except for raptor - twas a gift)
**note, these figures come from HDTune, a synthetic benchmark for HDDs.

112MB/s, 13.2ms: RAID0 'cuda's, 600GB total, $120 (ICH9R on P35-DS3R)
78MB/s, 08.2ms: WD Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB, $160
76MB/s, 13.7ms: WD Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS 750GB, $150
72MB/s, 15.4ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250410AS 250GB, $65
68MB/s, 13.3ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB, $60
65MB/s, 13.7ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB, $80
65MB/s, 13.2ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3300620AS 300GB, $60
63MB/s, 13.4ms: WD Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS 500GB, $100
62MB/s, 15.3ms: Samsung HD501LJ 500GB, $105
52MB/s, 14.0ms: WD Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB, $70

As you can see, the 'cuda is twice the size and half the cost, for nearly the same avg transfer rate as the Raptor. Stick them in RAID0, and you've got an even more cost effective solution. Though, the seek time of the Raptor can't be beat. If you have cash to burn, do so on a Raptor if you really want it. Otherwise, there are better cost effective solutions depending on your needs these days.

[Bomber18]

I'd disagree on saying that raptors are a wasted expense. I noticed the increased load times in practicly everything I do from my old system and having windows actually boot decently fast is a god send.

If your comparing two regular speed hard drives in raid configuration its a little more iffy but strictly talking single drive rpm comparisons it is noticable and worth the money in my opinion, atleast for your operating system and games.

[KD28]

Yah, in terms of storage for the money, I know they arent 'worth' it. I'm replacing my mobo and already have 1 cuda 320. Was just thinking if I bought another cuda for 80 bucks (missed the $60 deals) I'd have to get the ds3r. For about 40 less, I could get the ds3L and use the difference towards the raptor so I really wouldnt be 'wasting' that much. Plus the raptors still would have a significantly lower seek time. The higher transfer time of the raided cuda would be nice if I frequently moved large files (which I really dont).

Thanks for the imput, I do see your point. I'm just afraid the raptor is going to be loud :rolleyes:

[bbz_Ghost]

They're not that loud, and if people say they are, they probably just don't know how to mount them correctly. Sure, anyone can just slide it in and screw it down, but that just turns the case into an amplifier basically, and then you'll hear it - hell you'll hear any drives mounted in such ways. However, if you were to put the drive in a "cage" of sorts, made from rubber bands and pencils or even straws (I'm being totally serious here), you can end up with a near-silent hard drive setup.

There are other threads about this type of setup here you can find here with a simple search, of do a Google search for hard drive rubber band and it should turn up something. I've built various rigs from multi-drive 7200 rpm setups to full blown RAID-5 setups with 15K Cheetahs over the years, most all of them are near-silent in operation because I don't mount drives directly to the case itself which becomes a radiator for drive/actuator noise, aka a big speaker.

Good luck...

ps
But to be honest, Raptors aren't that loud, really. 15K Cheetahs are louder in my experience, just the bare drives held in my hand are much louder than a Raptor compared the same way.

[enginurd]

My 'cuda boots nearly as fast as my raptor. My 750GB is the same way, nearly as fast as my raptor. Honestly, I just don't see the value in spending so much, just to save a couple seconds here and there. Though, my raptor was a gift. :D My RAID0 'cuda array (2-drive) boots faster than my raptor... go figure. A RAMDisk with 8GB of RAM would be much faster than a raptor.

The soft silicon grommets in Antec cases work well for me, as far as silencing HDD noises to acceptable levels.

[Jakalwarrior]

You do pay a bit of a premium on them BUT they last a good long time and you carry them from build to build. They also rarely get outdated lol. Ive had mine for ages and although the 150gig version is faster, I still have the second fastest SATA drive available. Had it for my last 3 builds.

[Grentz]

I find the raptors are very fast and make a big difference for the kind of work I do. Programs open quicker, programs are more responsive, and everything is just nicer.

I also do not like RAID0 arrays....HDDs are the most vulnerable part of any system so why double the chances of failure?

[KD28]

My RAID0 'cuda array (2-drive) boots faster than my raptor... go figure. A RAMDisk with 8GB of RAM would be much faster than a raptor.


Oh thats odd isnt it? I would have thought booting and accessing files would be completely dependent on access/seek times. And I thought that raptors would have a faster seek time than raided cudas. That would be whole reason for going with a raptor.

Again, I really dont feel I'm wasting that much extra since I can go with the ds3L which is about 40 less than the ds3R (which I'd need to raid them). But again, I value the input.

I cant tell if the 7200.11 significantly better than the .10's. If Raiding is a better option, would it be more worth it to raid 2x500gb .11? Think I'd never need more space again lol.

[Dan_D]

It depends on the case. In my P182, and P190 cases I can't hear the Raptors at all. The fan noice drowns them out. (BTW I have four of them in my machine.) When I switched to the Coolermaster Cosmos the sound proofing material, case design and possibly the fans themselves actually produce very little audible sound. However I can hear my Raptors more than ever in this case. I'm not sure if it is their location in the case or what, but they are certainly one of the louder things in my case. Even so it doesn't bother me all that much. I've also got a pair of Raptor 74GB drives in an Antec Solo and I can't hear them at all.

[RCGodward]

Back in the day of the 36 gig Raptors they were pretty loud. I have two 150s now and I can't say I notice them at all. I can't hear my computer running unless I'm doing some kind of massive compile, and then it's the processor fan spooling up that makes the noise.

[gramarye]

How are Raptor WD1500ADFD 's in a RAID-array?

[Dan_D]

How are Raptor WD1500ADFD 's in a RAID-array?

They've always worked well for me.

[gramarye]

They've always worked well for me.

Thanks for the quick response. Which RAID array did you choose? Which do you Recommend that is safe, w/o losing any data...Thanks. :D

[Dan_D]

Thanks for the quick response. Which RAID array did you choose?

I've run them in RAID 5, and RAID 0+1. The latter is what I am using now. When I ran them in RAID 5 I had a fairly expensive SAS controller that they were attached to. That's my favorite setup but I needed that PCIe slot for my third 8800GTX.

[-Dragon-]

Thanks for the quick response. Which RAID array did you choose? Which do you Recommend that is safe, w/o losing any data...Thanks. :D

I've always considered my raptors as pure speed boost and not worried about failures, I use a much cheaper RAID-5 3x500GB seagate setup for data, that said when stuff is going on that accesses both drives, yeah, it's loud what with 5 drives going.

If I didn't use the RAID-5 data drive I'd have the raptors with a 300+GB external backup and set the system to auto archive regularly, gives you better reliability with far less cost than a RAID-5 raptor setup (and less noise).

[bigted]

i bought a couple used 74g here on the forums. i can hear them perfectly fine when loading, but i have an antec superlanboy, and the fan up front allows the noise to come through. still it's not bad at all, don't let people scare you.

i get about 118mb/s with 8.0ms seek. again, benchmarks, synthetic, blah blah.

[gramarye]

What RAID should be used if it's only going to be (2) Raptors WD1500ADFD?

[bigted]

What RAID should be used if it's only going to be (2) Raptors WD1500ADFD?

it depends on if you want performance or if you want your data to be backed up.

also depends on what your RAID card can do.

[Empty_Quarter]

At first yeah the raptor might seem quite loud, but then you get used to it, unless you are really anal about silence.

I had mine running in an Antec 900 w/ low fans (which I consider to be a open case), and raptors were loud, but it isn't that bad. I dont think it will be much of an issue with a P-182 w/ medium fans.

IMO, it only gets irritating while running a virus scan on the drive, 5-10 mins of grinding and ticking does get irritating eventually. However during OS loads, its an acceptable noise level.

[gramarye]

it depends on if you want performance or if you want your data to be backed up.

also depends on what your RAID card can do.

Backup would be External.
Performance is what is demanded in my thread: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1258805

Is a motherboard RAID reliable? or an extra raid card is? I have a Sonnet Tempo for my mac...Considering a few Syba's or Rosewills...

[enginurd]

How are Raptor WD1500ADFD 's in a RAID-array?

Not sure about the 150GB, though I'd imagine it wouldn't be much of an improvement. I'm basing my imagination off an AT review on the older raptors:
Western Digital's Raptors in RAID-0: Are two drives better than one? (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101)

Oh thats odd isnt it? I would have thought booting and accessing files would be completely dependent on access/seek times. And I thought that raptors would have a faster seek time than raided cudas. That would be whole reason for going with a raptor.

Again, I really dont feel I'm wasting that much extra since I can go with the ds3L which is about 40 less than the ds3R (which I'd need to raid them). But again, I value the input.

I cant tell if the 7200.11 significantly better than the .10's. If Raiding is a better option, would it be more worth it to raid 2x500gb .11? Think I'd never need more space again lol.

Raptors are still the fastest seeking single, non-scsi drive solutoins around. If you don't mind the price premium, and don't like the chances of data loss with RAID0, then go with the Raptor. RAID0 is a better option for me because I do a lot of squential writes. I move large files often and do a lot of video encoding, along with a lot of media ripping.

I was going to RAID0 250GB 'cudas, but then the 300GB 'cudas went on sale at Fry's for $60, so I picked those up a few months ago instead. The price of my 250GB 'cuda was $65, and was purchased around the same time. I've got a couple more 320GB 'cudas that I got from their last $60 sale last month, and will be trying a 4-drive array whenever I get the chance.

I find the raptors are very fast and make a big difference for the kind of work I do. Programs open quicker, programs are more responsive, and everything is just nicer.

I also do not like RAID0 arrays....HDDs are the most vulnerable part of any system so why double the chances of failure?

I don't notice much of a difference between my 'cudas and my raptor, as far as openning programs and system responsiveness. I guess its just me. I'm sure you'll notice more of a difference with a RAMDisk.

I "double the chance of failure" for the performance increase. I have a great backup system for my important data, so I'm not worried about data loss. As for downtime, I have several other storage drives in my systems, each with a tiny OS partition in case the main array goes down. This setup has worked well for me for quite a few years.

[gramarye]

Thanks for the link.

enginurd, would you recommend a 1 TB as a Primary Disk?

[Dan_D]

it depends on if you want performance or if you want your data to be backed up.

also depends on what your RAID card can do.

NO

RAID is NOT backup. It is FAR from it. RAID is for redundancy and not backup. RAID only maximizes uptime and that is all it does. Hell even external drives attached to your machine are lousy backup devices. For one thing RAID doesn't do anything to safegaurd your data from viruses or catestrophic issues such as fire or electrical surges. Only an offline backup solution where your data is in a different location or locked in something fire resistant could be considered decent backup.

Anything I want to safe guard can fit on a DVD. I store that in a 600lbs safe that is fire rated and bolted to concrete. I also offsite a copy of it to a friend to put in his safe. (The data is valuable to me, but not sensitive.) The data is also replicated on most of my computers. That is how you backup your data. Trusting in other magnetic/mechanical hard drives and RAID arrays is foolish.

[Dan_D]

Thanks for the link.

enginurd, would you recommend a 1 TB as a Primary Disk?

For general use and for most people I'd say yes. Though it is far from an optimal solution. I always prefer to have a single fast disk or RAID array for my C:\ drive and a larger drive for storage. For my storage drive performance is a secondary concern second to capacity. I also tend to use RAID 1 for storage volumes in order to maximize uptime and make things easier on me should one disk fail.

[enginurd]

enginurd, would you recommend a 1 TB as a Primary Disk?

Not right now, since the price is a bit high. Its still got the first-kid-on-the-block pricetag, and will for a while until something new comes out, lol. Theres also that thing about not putting all your eggs in one basket... ;) Though, soon 1TB drives will be common enough to use as primary drives. Again, this is all just my opinion.

[Dan_D]

Not right now, since the price is a bit high. Its still got the first-kid-on-the-block pricetag, and will for a while until something new comes out, lol. Theres also that thing about not putting all your eggs in one basket... ;) Though, soon 1TB drives will be common enough to use as primary drives. Again, this is all just my opinion.

I hadn't considered price. I think 500GB and 750GB drives are the sweet spot for pricing. I'd rather have two of those in RAID 1 vs. one 1TB drive any day.

[Mav451]

I was just thinking:

Say I get a 150GB Raptor for my OS/Games/Progs. Then say I have a 750GB for storage. If I put the page file on the 750GB, would I be losing a bit of performance there? Because the 750's just a regular SATA drive.

All this is from the old adage of putting scratch disk / page file on another physical drive than your OS drive.

[gramarye]

Not right now, since the price is a bit high. Its still got the first-kid-on-the-block pricetag, and will for a while until something new comes out, lol. Theres also that thing about not putting all your eggs in one basket... ;) Though, soon 1TB drives will be common enough to use as primary drives. Again, this is all just my opinion.

I already have a 1TB drive. I was considering getting a 750gb but for $150(roughly), I couldn't pass up on a 1 TB drive. So the price of that is not in concern.


Thanks Dan_D, for all this help bytheway. These are some great responses! :D

[enginurd]

For general use and for most people I'd say yes. Though it is far from an optimal solution. I always prefer to have a single fast disk or RAID array for my C:\ drive and a larger drive for storage. For my storage drive performance is a secondary concern second to capacity. I also tend to use RAID 1 for storage volumes in order to maximize uptime and make things easier on me should one disk fail.

I agree with Dan. I was mainly taking the price angle in my first reply, and didn't notice Dan's reply. I always have more than one drive in all my systems, even my little sister's; and the storage drive always has a tiny OS partition in case the main drive goes down. I think the current sweet spot for pricing is 20¢/GB.

Oh, I didn't know you already had the 1TB drive, lol. You could use it as your main drive and create a partition for storage, but I'd still recommend a 2nd drive if you can afford one.

@ Mav451: No, you wouldn't lose much performance if you put the pagefile on your storage drive since the 750GB and 500GB drives are pretty fast.

[colinstu]

Get two $150 raptors, throw them in RAID 0... get 300GB of space and they are f'ing fast. Yea they cost a lot and are noisy... for that speed it's totally worth it.

[ALL4AMD]

For general use and for most people I'd say yes. Though it is far from an optimal solution. I always prefer to have a single fast disk or RAID array for my C:\ drive and a larger drive for storage. For my storage drive performance is a secondary concern second to capacity. I also tend to use RAID 1 for storage volumes in order to maximize uptime and make things easier on me should one disk fail.


this is what im doing.

my new rig im going to build will have 2 raptors in raid 0 for c: and then for d: im going to run 2 1tb drives in raid1.

to those people that have had issues with raid 0, i have yet to have a issue with raid 0 and data lose over 4 years with this puter.

[Dan_D]

this is what im doing.

my new rig im going to build will have 2 raptors in raid 0 for c: and then for d: im going to run 2 1tb drives in raid1.

to those people that have had issues with raid 0, i have yet to have a issue with raid 0 and data lose over 4 years with this puter.

Almost two years ago I had a 74GB Raptor go tits up on me. Otherwise I haven't had any problems with RAID 0 arrays in all the years they've been an option on enthusiast type motherboards.

[gramarye]

If you have any drives that have loud seek noises, then you know what a raptor sounds like. I can't hear mine since my tower is under my desk. Though, Raptors aren't worth their price, IMO...

Avg Transfer Rate, Access Time: HDD info, Price I paid (except for raptor - twas a gift)
**note, these figures come from HDTune, a synthetic benchmark for HDDs.

112MB/s, 13.2ms: RAID0 'cuda's, 600GB total, $120 (ICH9R on P35-DS3R)
78MB/s, 08.2ms: WD Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB, $160
76MB/s, 13.7ms: WD Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS 750GB, $150
72MB/s, 15.4ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250410AS 250GB, $65
68MB/s, 13.3ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB, $60
65MB/s, 13.7ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB, $80
65MB/s, 13.2ms: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3300620AS 300GB, $60
63MB/s, 13.4ms: WD Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS 500GB, $100
62MB/s, 15.3ms: Samsung HD501LJ 500GB, $105
52MB/s, 14.0ms: WD Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB, $70

As you can see, the 'cuda is twice the size and half the cost, for nearly the same avg transfer rate as the Raptor. Stick them in RAID0, and you've got an even more cost effective solution. Though, the seek time of the Raptor can't be beat. If you have cash to burn, do so on a Raptor if you really want it. Otherwise, there are better cost effective solutions depending on your needs these days.


What is/are your RAID0 'cuda's?

[Arcygenical]

I have three words to answer your question: "Holy crap yes!"

A single raptor 74gb ADFD was louder than my entire system, before I went to watercooling! I had to get a nexus disktwin to silence it.

[enginurd]

What is/are your RAID0 'cuda's?

Heh, it used to be obvious with my list of drives, but I've added so many since then. I'm using two 300GB cuda.10's that I got for $60 each back in september, IIRC. When I get a chance I'll turn it into a 4 drive array with two more 320GB cuda.10's that I also got for $60 each back in december.

Loud is subjective.

[AMD_Gamer]

Get two $150 raptors, throw them in RAID 0... get 300GB of space and they are f'ing fast. Yea they cost a lot and are noisy... for that speed it's totally worth it.

Quoted for truth!:D

also i have been running my system for a few weeks now and i dont really even notice the noise anymore you kinda get use to it

[gramarye]

Heh, it used to be obvious with my list of drives, but I've added so many since then. I'm using two 300GB cuda.10's that I got for $60 each back in september, IIRC. When I get a chance I'll turn it into a 4 drive array with two more 320GB cuda.10's that I also got for $60 each back in december.

Loud is subjective.

Thanks for your reply. Would your 4-drive array perform faster than your 2? It's interesting to see your benchmarks that your 2x Cuda's in RAID0 surpassed the WD Raptor 1500ADFD, because of that fact you mentioned, I'm considering trading my WD Raptor for 2 Cudas...Are there any other similar sources out there?

[enginurd]

Yes, a 4-drive array would have a higher avg transfer rate than a 2-drive array. Though, the seek time is not affected. Raptor's are faster at seeking due to their 10,000RPM spindle speed, which is why they are still the fastest single non-scsi drive out there. If you do a lot of sequential writes and need the high transfer rate, then go for the RAID0 array.

There used to be a review that I linked to a lot before, which put a 2-drive 7K80 array, a 4-drive 7K80 array, and a raptor all against each other... but I can't find the link anymore (its old now anyways, lol). I'm sure there are other reviews out there, but be sure you have a good backup solution if you plan on going RAID0. Tom's has HDD charts and storagereview.com is also a good resource.

[gramarye]

I have three words to answer your question: "Holy crap yes!"

A single raptor 74gb ADFD was louder than my entire system, before I went to watercooling! I had to get a nexus disktwin to silence it.

did the nexus disktwin work well, like it really "silenced"it? if so, i'd probably be more interested than the scythe ones:

Scythe FANLESS HDD BOX Aluminum Internal HDD Silencer for 3.5" HDD on 5.25" bay
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835185040

Scythe SQD-1000 "Quiet Drive" Internal HDD Silencer for 2.5 & 3.5 inch HDD on 5.25inch bay
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817984002


i'll take your recommendation...