Is a WD Raptor drive worth the cost?

M

Mandrake

n00b
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19
I'm upgrading to 4GB ram, and am thinking about upgrading my hard disk at the same time. I've read plenty of reviews, but I still can't find a straight answer. I currently have 2x 250GB and 1x 500GB for storage. My OS is on a 160GB Seagate SATA drive with 8MB cache. Will going to a 150GB Raptor noticeably improve OS responsiveness and program/game loading times?
 
Mandrake said:
Will going to a 150GB Raptor noticeably improve OS responsiveness and program/game loading times?
Click to expand...
It would, but in my opinion, it's not really worth the money. Get the Seagate 7200.11 drives. They are pretty close or on par with the Raptor speeds, and have 32mb cache.
 
YES. Totally worth it. For me. YMMV. These "worth it" thread are loaded anyway. What I think is "worth it" may not be to others.
 
Mandrake said:
I'm upgrading to 4GB ram, and am thinking about upgrading my hard disk at the same time. I've read plenty of reviews, but I still can't find a straight answer. I currently have 2x 250GB and 1x 500GB for storage. My OS is on a 160GB Seagate SATA drive with 8MB cache. Will going to a 150GB Raptor noticeably improve OS responsiveness and program/game loading times?
Click to expand...

You probably won't notice a difference except in seek time benches. They aren't the top dog for sequential transfer rates anymore (because of their low areal density) so load times will actually be slower than on the latest 7200 RPM drives.

The Seagate 7200.11 series will serve you better for loading times and as far as OS responsiveness, well, a couple of milliseconds better seek is not noticeable. There is also a 320GB/platter WD drive out there, but unfortunately it shares a model number with an older drive so its hard to tell if you're getting the MUCH faster high density version. They will be releasing a 640GB version of it here pretty soon with the same speed. Samsung's also got a couple of speedy drives out there though but they don't pull down very good ratings.

Most of the Raptor's appeal is the placebo effect people get from using it. They expect it to be faster, so to them, it actually feels faster, even if it isn't actually doing anything except making a lot of heat and noise.

Once upon a time it was the fastest drive out there, but it's gotten too old and WD has not updated the tech. Its going to be hard to market a tiny 150GB drive that is actually slower, louder, and hotter than a drive 4-8 times its size. Perhaps they will release a new Raptor but we haven't heard anything.
 
Lately, I've been thinking of ditching mine for a larger 7200RPM drive. The noise is starting to get to me after 1.5 years, and all my other hard drives are silent...I really need the storage more than the 5 second boost in game load times.
 
It is not worth the cost now considering how much space games and programs take up nowdays. However, you probably will notice a speed difference under windows when you click around. My brother has the 74gig Raptors and I can tell the difference. If access time is critical to you more than space then it may benefit you. Other than that, a SATA 3.0gb/s harddrive with 32mb cache is suitable for most peoples needs.
 
-=Antimatter=- said:
Lately, I've been thinking of ditching mine for a larger 7200RPM drive. The noise is starting to get to me after 1.5 years, and all my other hard drives are silent...I really need the storage more than the 5 second boost in game load times.
Click to expand...

Probably not a bad idea, plus if you get one of the fastest 7200rpms, it'll actually load levels and such faster. (One of the few things that actually do a sequential read :p)
 
I wouldn't buy one now. I have a 150GB Raptor I bought shortly after they became available. At that time, there were really no 7200RPM drives which could hold a candle to it, but that has changed as drives have become more dense and gotten 32MB cache.
 
I've heard that 320MB/640MB Raptors are coming this year, and they'd probably be good, but I don't think the old Raptors are worth it now. Sure, the seek is a little quicker, but in a single-user environment the drive isn't spending that much of its time seeking anyway. You're not getting any benefit on transfer speeds versus fast 7200rpm drives, but you are getting a whole lot less storage for the money.
 
I like Raptors and put them in as many systems as I can. If you have the budget I'd say go for it. If you don't, then get a bigger 7200rpm drive.
 
I've got Raptors too & when people ask me if it's worth it I tell them no. They are a little faster, but at the cost & smaller space.
 
I have both a 150GB Raptor and a 1TB Seagate 7200.11, and I have been able to notice a difference in the load times of either Windows XP or World of Warcraft.

My OS is separated off to a 150GB partition, to reduce seek times, and that makes a huge difference on the 1TB drive. I've actually moved the OS over to the 1TB drive (I just got it yesterday) and will be using the Raptor for Vista (x64) and experimenting with it.
 
Hell no they ain't worth it! BUT, I love mine and wouldn't trade for anything but a new faster Raptor! :D
 
They were worth it closer to when the latest iteration came out (i've got one) but now they're not. Good purchase on the .11.
 
I put a 36 gig Raptor in one of my older rigs a while ago, and it has worked just fine for several years. In fact it is still in use in my secondary system right now.

As for the rig I just put together last week, I went with a 500 gig 7200.11 for $126 delivered from Newegg. It is fast, smooth, big, and quiet. I am very happy with it. Just rememeber to pull the jumper next to the power connector to allow SATA II speed. They lock it in Sata I from the factory for compatibility reasons. It sent my burst speed in HD Tach from 110 MB/sec to over 180 MB/sec. Not sure what that means in real life stuff, but faster is faster.:cool:

Don
 
from the reviews i have read, aren't the 7200.11 slower than the WDs AAKS? or even the Hitachi 7k1000 series? Althought the difference is small and seagate offers better warranty.
 
OK here is the thing actually today I was faced with the same decision. I bought the raptor. I have enough storage to satisfy anyone. I like the speed of the drive just opening files and such. I did pay $185 after tax at Best Buy. I did notice all my games load a lot faster than my 250 gig drives.

Funny thing is I also have another raptor that im sending in for RMA then im gonna sell it.
 
sttubs said:
I've got Raptors too & when people ask me if it's worth it I tell them no. They are a little faster, but at the cost & smaller space.
Click to expand...

And the noise! I know people say different things when it comes to noise on these things, but my 74GB is so loud I can literally hear it rumbling from the other end of the house. It's so annoying that I'm trying to find a SSD solution just to put games on.
 
Deliximus said:
from the reviews i have read, aren't the 7200.11 slower than the WDs AAKS? or even the Hitachi 7k1000 series? Althought the difference is small and seagate offers better warranty.
Click to expand...

yes I thought the 7200.11 were behind the WD AAKS and 7K1000 as well in "real world" tests. Although when you see synthetic benchmarks the 7200.11 is sometimes ahead.

I want to buy a hd as well at least 500-750gig and I haven't been able to decide which one to get as I value both performance and quietness with reliability.
 
I really don't see how any of you guys can survive with a 150gb hdd as your o/s disc, assuming you install all your programs there. 500gb is a wee bit smallish to me.
 
I just bought 2x 150gb raptors myself for my new rig... RAID 0 *drool*
as you can see in my sig, i used 2 regular 7200 rpm HDs in RAID 0 and the performance is amazing compared to no RAID. cant wait to see what 2 raptors in RAID0 are like

when people say they put the OS on their raptor(s) - do u mean JUST the OS?

what about apps and games?

Ive heard of ppl installing OS on raptor then installing apps/games on regular 7200 drives. whats the point of loading vista/xp load 4 seconds faster if photoshop/warcraft/crysis/whatever still takes 15 seconds to load?
 
zmjone2992 said:
I really don't see how any of you guys can survive with a 150gb hdd as your o/s disc, assuming you install all your programs there. 500gb is a wee bit smallish to me.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why everyone seems to still be using SINGLE drives! I've got a Raptor 36GB for the OS, Raptor 150 GB for Games and Apps, and two 500 GB Seagates for storage. Not to mention the other four computers in my room!

Also, Raptors are built to be server drives, and as such, are made more reliable. I am tired of losing data, and tired of recovering backups and reloading Windows due to HD failures. I choose reliability first.

carajean206 - I'm interested in why you are RMA'ing the Raptor, did it fail?
 
Yeah the raptor will sometimes be detected then most times wont. I have to do a little dance and hope and then it might show up. Yeah its under warranty till 2011 so I may as well not waste any more brain time and RMA it.
 
Well, that is the first I've heard about failing, but there aren't as many Raptor's out there to begin with either. I've had a bad cable a couple of times, so you may want check that. Buy a few the next time you order hardware so you have some spare, they cost less than shipping.

I have seen a few PC's where the IDE controller crapped out and took both CD ROMs and the Hard drive with it, but not SATA yet. At least you can still get your data.
 
I could detect a slight improvement speed wise going from a 2 platter 250GB drive up to a 74GB Raptor for my boot drive. It wasn't enough that I would buy one again without getting a killer deal though. I can't hear my raptor since it's trapped inside of a P180B which muffles just about anything.
 
I have my Operating System and all of my games / programs on my Raptor X. All of my files reside on the 750GB Samsung F1.

I love the raptor for its window, and it is much faster than my old seagate 160gb. Is it worth it to have the raptor? Probably not. Does that view through its little window impress the hell out of everyone who sees it? Absolutely.

Does the noise get annoying? Very. Hopefully the new raptor revision changes that.
 
for the price & noise of raptors i think they've had their day now with 250/320gb platter drives available.

they need to increase the areal density on them, atm they're just poor value for money in my eyes ...they're not even the fastest drives for map loading anymore but still cost an arm and a leg.
 
Well, IMO an Arm costs more than $200, and A Leg costs $350, so an "arm and a leg" would be more than $550. Raptor X can be had for $186. A few years ago any decent drive cost that, now most are less than $100. But, I've seen a drop in quality as well, you get what you pay for.

The 36 GB Raptor was around $220 when it was new, a lot for a 36GB drive. But remember, this is a different kind of drive. 36 GB is insufficient today, but it is a pointless argument to compare cost/GB with 500 GB drives. Until Windows 7 and Apps require 200 GB+, the space here with the RaptorX 150 GB is sufficient. These are made to be performance drives, not storage drives.

Now, the performance does need to be improved as the 7200 RPM drives are catching up, but only increase the areal density if it will actually improve performance. The main reason it is so low to begin with is so the head can lock on to the bits faster.

And loud is relative. Eight years ago I was wondering how the hell people could stand the noise of the hard drives available at the time. That's when Seagate came to the rescue with their near silent drives. Now they are all nearly silent. Raptors aren't loud, they just aren't silent. I like to hear the drive anyway, that way I know when it is working, what I am waiting for, and if there is a problem I should look into.
 
verteron said:
Well, IMO an Arm costs more than $200, and A Leg costs $350, so an "arm and a leg" would be more than $550. Raptor X can be had for $186. A few years ago any decent drive cost that, now most are less than $100. But, I've seen a drop in quality as well, you get what you pay for.

The 36 GB Raptor was around $220 when it was new, a lot for a 36GB drive. But remember, this is a different kind of drive. 36 GB is insufficient today, but it is a pointless argument to compare cost/GB with 500 GB drives. Until Windows 7 and Apps require 200 GB+, the space here with the RaptorX 150 GB is sufficient. These are made to be performance drives, not storage drives.

Now, the performance does need to be improved as the 7200 RPM drives are catching up, but only increase the areal density if it will actually improve performance. The main reason it is so low to begin with is so the head can lock on to the bits faster.

And loud is relative. Eight years ago I was wondering how the hell people could stand the noise of the hard drives available at the time. That's when Seagate came to the rescue with their near silent drives. Now they are all nearly silent. Raptors aren't loud, they just aren't silent. I like to hear the drive anyway, that way I know when it is working, what I am waiting for, and if there is a problem I should look into.
Click to expand...

"Sufficient" is relative too. I've had my 74GB ADFD Raptor for almost two years, and I have 1TB of storage alongside it. I've just replaced the raptor with a larger drive because I can't have all the games I want installed at the same time, and it's just too damn loud. It's just not enough anymore, and they're long overdue for an updated model.

Windows is 20GB, Steam folder 15GB+, toss in a 26GB HD-DVD rip in progress and 10GB of applications and the 74GB fills up real fast.
 
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14200

Good benchmarks here, Raptor soundly beaten by most of the recent 7200rpm drives, and gets thoroughly crushed by the Samsung F1 in everything but multi-user server loads (high concurrent IO requests.) We're talking +20-25% sequential transfer rates. A lot of people will claim a Raptor feels faster, but uh, when you spend 4-6 times what someone else did per gigabyte, you'd want it to feel faster too. Placebo effect etc.
 
"Feels faster" for me is usually the access time alone. How long it takes from click, to "yea, I'm loadin' it." Things like Firefox, email, IM's, and P2P don't have many MB to transfer to load up. For games with massive texture files, sure, but for common tasks, the Raptor "feels" faster to me. :)

But really, I agree that the Raptor is not just last years' corvette, it is more like the "Trans Amm" from "Smoky and the Bandit." It needs an update badly, many 7200 drives are passing it in too many performance areas.
 
verteron said:
"Feels faster" for me is usually the access time alone. How long it takes from click, to "yea, I'm loadin' it." Things like Firefox, email, IM's, and P2P don't have many MB to transfer to load up. For games with massive texture files, sure, but for common tasks, the Raptor "feels" faster to me. :)

But really, I agree that the Raptor is not just last years' corvette, it is more like the "Trans Amm" from "Smoky and the Bandit." It needs an update badly, many 7200 drives are passing it in too many performance areas.
Click to expand...

Yeah you'd think Seagate would keep it relatively up to date, I mean its not like they don't know. Their own 7200.11 beats it most of the time.

I sure hope they dont discontinue the line. I for one would be willing to pay a premium for performance, but going up to 15krpm SAS is just too costly.
 
not worth it... a simple raid0 is much better value... the average user wont notice the difference between a raptor and a new 7200rpm... but levels on videogames will load faster on 7200rpm/raid0 than a single raptor anyways...
 
verteron said:
Well, IMO an Arm costs more than $200, and A Leg costs $350, so an "arm and a leg" would be more than $550. Raptor X can be had for $186. A few years ago any decent drive cost that, now most are less than $100. But, I've seen a drop in quality as well, you get what you pay for.

The 36 GB Raptor was around $220 when it was new, a lot for a 36GB drive. But remember, this is a different kind of drive. 36 GB is insufficient today, but it is a pointless argument to compare cost/GB with 500 GB drives. Until Windows 7 and Apps require 200 GB+, the space here with the RaptorX 150 GB is sufficient. These are made to be performance drives, not storage drives.

Now, the performance does need to be improved as the 7200 RPM drives are catching up, but only increase the areal density if it will actually improve performance. The main reason it is so low to begin with is so the head can lock on to the bits faster.

And loud is relative. Eight years ago I was wondering how the hell people could stand the noise of the hard drives available at the time. That's when Seagate came to the rescue with their near silent drives. Now they are all nearly silent. Raptors aren't loud, they just aren't silent. I like to hear the drive anyway, that way I know when it is working, what I am waiting for, and if there is a problem I should look into.
Click to expand...

they aren't storage drives? thank you for pointing that out :)

the latest 7200rpm drives aren't catching up, they've taken over already in most areas ....which is why it isn't a pointless argument to compare cost/GB verus a Raptor anymore - and unless they increase the platter size how do you expect them to increase performance exactly?

"The main reason it is so low to begin with is so the head can lock on to the bits faster." <--- never seen 450GB 15K SAS drives before? it's to do with cost and nothing to do with "locking onto bits" :p

loud isn't relative - peoples threshold for noise is relative. as far as noise they are noisy drives especially when seeking, just because you like to hear them operate doesn't mean they aren't.

hey i have a 74gb raptor in my main box and for their time they 'were' great drives and are still near the top performers but as 7.2k drives have improved so much recently it's just hard to recommend them anymore at their current prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top