Raptor vs. Maxtor Diamondmax 10

[extreme4377]

How does the 74GB Raptor (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144366) compare with the Diamondmax 10 300GB (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144359)?

Besides more storage space, 16MB cache, SATAII, and a quieter operation, whats better about the Maxtor?

Thanks

[DougLite]

When comparing the drives, you must decide if the extra performance of the Raptor offsets its weaknesses. If you're only going to have one drive, then I'd go for the Maxtor. It's best to have both :D

[extreme4377]

Well Ive got the Raptor and an external WD 160GB ATA/100 drive. The only thing is, with the external 160, it adds a good 6 or so degrees to my CPU temps cuz it sits on top of my case. So, I want storage space and I want performance but I dont want noise or heat. I can bare the raptor's heat and noise just not the storage space, or lack there of. Thats why Im looking at the Maxtor 300GB with 16mb cache.

[shoes]

the extra cache in the maxtor really plays a big roll in closing the gap between the two. where the raptor cuts seek time through pure speed, the maxtor gets it done with double the cache. cache is faster than any mechanical process no matter how fast your hdd spins.

i would rather have the maxtor for the reasons you listed in the first post.

[extreme4377]

what about a seagate 250GB 7200.8? That or a maxtor 300GB w/16mb?

[BillR]

the extra cache in the maxtor really plays a big roll in closing the gap between the two. where the raptor cuts seek time through pure speed, the maxtor gets it done with double the cache. cache is faster than any mechanical process no matter how fast your hdd spins.

i would rather have the maxtor for the reasons you listed in the first post.

The extra cache does indeed play an important roll in performance. The problem is “cache hits” and those only become really useful on repetitive tasks. On non-repetitive tasks the cache hits go down and so does the disk performance.

The platter speed of the Raptor suffers no such problems, thus on random reads and writes it will out perform the slower drive even though is has way more cache.

Again, get one of each and have the best of both worlds.

[tdg]

The Maxtor is very close to the performance of the Raptor, and will run a couple degrees cooler in addition to the already mentioned advantages of cost/space/cache/noise.

If I had my choice I'd go with the Maxtor, since for general use its a better overall drive. Really the only advantage of the Raptor would be its lower seek times, transfer rates are pretty close, just slightly in the Raptors favor in most cases.

[extreme4377]

The seagate and the maxtor are both looking good. The 7200.9 drives are supposed to come out some time soon so I may wait for one of those before making a decision. In the meantime, Ill just use an old wd 8mb 80gb drive I have laying around.

[shoes]

The extra cache does indeed play an important roll in performance. The problem is “cache hits” and those only become really useful on repetitive tasks. On non-repetitive tasks the cache hits go down and so does the disk performance.

The platter speed of the Raptor suffers no such problems, thus on random reads and writes it will out perform the slower drive even though is has way more cache.

Again, get one of each and have the best of both worlds.

ahh i never thought of it this way. thanks

[S1nF1xx]

Bottom line:
Overall the Raptor backhands all other non SCSI drives and says "Where's my money bitch!?". :p

As Doug said, having both is the best of both worlds.

Raptor or not, it's best to have an OS drive, and a data drive. That way if the OS gets hosed you don't have to scramble to recover data.