Raptor 150 upgrade from raptor 740?

S

silentwolf

n00b
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
39
Just a few weeks ago I ordered all the parts for a new rig I am building that will hopefully last me through most of college. I researched everything I needed, and went ahead and ordered them. Now, I have all the parts sitting at my house, waiting to be put together.

Here is the problem, I ordered two raptor 74 GB drives to put into a RAID 0 for the system. At the time I ordered them, I didnt know WD had the new 150 GB models avalible, or even that they existed.

I am still within the 30 day return period for newegg, so I could easily send my two 74 GB raptors back, and get the 150's instead. But here is my question, am I really going to see that much of a performance difference between the two to justify spending an extra 300 dollars to get the 150's, instead of sticking with the 74's?

Storage capacity really isnt an issue with me, because I am going to put all my extra files on a seperate hard drive, the raptors will only be holding progrms and the operating system.

So, opinions anyone?
 
Skip the RAID and go for a single 150 gig drive. It'll generally be faster than 2 RAIDed 74 gig drives if you're a typical gamer/power user
 
Another vote for single raptor 150, about same speed while less heat and nosie.
 
I beg to differ on this one. How can the one 150 be faster than 2 74s RAIDed? I just don't believe it. Especially the newer version of the 74.
 
gman said:
I beg to differ on this one. How can the 150 be faster that 2 74s RAIDed? I just don't believe it. Especially the newer version of the 74.
Click to expand...
The major advantage of the Raptors is seek time and cache strategy, not transfer rate. Raid hurts the first two, and only helps the second in artificial benchmarks.

 
The major advantage of the Raptors is seek time and cache strategy, not transfer rate. Raid hurts the first two, and only helps the second in artificial benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Are there benchmarks anywhere showing this? 1 - 150 vs. 2 - 74s
 
Looks to me 1 -150 vs. 2 - 74s is not faster except maybe in 1 benchmark.
 
gman said:
I beg to differ on this one. How can the one 150 be faster than 2 74s RAIDed? I just don't believe it. Especially the newer version of the 74.
Click to expand...
believe it

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1028808616&postcount=1

and quit spamming - edit your original post if you want to add something


silentwolf, return the 74s and get a single 150
you'll have a setup that's cooler, quieter, faster, and less prone to failure
 
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1001325

2x WD740GD in RAID-0 can't match a single WD1500ADFD in a single actual desktop usage scenario. Four of them match a single WD1500 in one scenario, but take a huge dive in the game measures to accomplish gians i nthe Office measure.

HDTach is a diagnostic measure of throughput and mechanical performance, not actual application level throughput.
 
and quit spamming - edit your original post if you want to add something
Click to expand...

Man, some of you guys are perfect aren't you?

I guess we can agree to disagree on this one. I can see where the 150 may be faster in some cases, but I don't believe in all cases. I see that the benches here in the forum show one thing, but there are other ones that show differently, who's to say which one is correct? I'm sure DL here will insist the one's 'he' references is the only one.
 
gman said:
I guess we can agree to disagree on this one. I can see where the 150 may be faster in some cases, but I don't believe in all cases. I see that the benches here in the forum show one thing, but there are other ones that show differently, who's to say which one is correct? I'm sure DL here will insist the one's 'he' references is the only one.
Click to expand...

Sure, the RAID is faster in some cases. However, it's pretty speciallized. Most desktop systems won't benefit from RAID0.

As for which review to believe, I generally trust real world application performance over synthetic benchmarks. It's like comparing actual in game framerates to 3Dmarks.
 
For me the 150 is overpriced. Go get a couple of used 74 giggers via the forum and save the cash. The real world difference is slight if at all noticeable. Just my two cents though...
 
Well, averaged used price is $130-150 right now for the 74gb used, and you can get a brand new w/ full warrenty 150 for $300 right now. Seems like a no brainer.

wewt, post 4096 ^_^
 
gman said:
I can see where the 150 may be faster in some cases, but I don't believe in all cases. I see that the benches here in the forum show one thing, but there are other ones that show differently, who's to say which one is correct?
Click to expand...
Hello? The benchmarks aren't conflicting, they're comparing different things and it makes perfect sense if you have a basic understand of how such things work.
Try looking at what they're benchmarking instead of just the pretty pictures.
Raptor 150 will win in the vast majority of real world applications. Raptor 74 RAID0 will win in a few specialized scenarios, and in synthetic benchmarks dealing with transfer rates and such.

Is it hard to accept because you're attempting to justify your own purchase?
 
EnderW said:
Hello? The benchmarks aren't conflicting, they're comparing different things and it makes perfect sense if you have a basic understand of how such things work.
Try looking at what they're benchmarking instead of just the pretty pictures.
Raptor 150 will win in the vast majority of real world applications. Raptor 74 RAID0 will win in a few specialized scenarios, and in synthetic benchmarks dealing with transfer rates and such.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Raid 0 is to disk storage as rice is to cars. Good in theory, but IRL it doesn't work out so well.

 
Ok, I've had my say. You guys believe what you do and I'll continue to read up on it.

Though I still don't get why the one benchmark that DL shows is the Holy Grail on the subject. All benchmarks are different most of the time anyway. One sites shows benchmarks and says yeah this is great, the next site shows something completely different. If there isn't a system setup that everyone uses then it doesn't make much since when you start to compare.
 
gman said:
Ok, I've had my say. You guys believe what you do and I'll continue to read up on it.

Though I still don't get why the one benchmark that DL shows is the Holy Grail on the subject. All benchmarks are different most of the time anyway. One sites shows benchmarks and says yeah this is great, the next site shows something completely different. If there isn't a system setup that everyone uses then it doesn't make much since when you start to compare.
Click to expand...

Well, DL is quoting StorageReview, if you read up on there benchmarking processes, they are pretty sound. Also there is a huge thread on the very subject on there boards as well, the one DL linked at the top of his post with the 150 v. 74RAID0 graphic. I found it to be a pretty interesting read.
 
gman said:
Ok, I've had my say. You guys believe what you do and I'll continue to read up on it.

Though I still don't get why the one benchmark that DL shows is the Holy Grail on the subject. All benchmarks are different most of the time anyway. One sites shows benchmarks and says yeah this is great, the next site shows something completely different. If there isn't a system setup that everyone uses then it doesn't make much since when you start to compare.
Click to expand...

It's more that the benchmarks that a lot of review sites use aren't measuring the right things. For example, you could compare horsepower, torque, and quarter mile times of a Corvette and a Camry. The Corvette smokes the Camry when you use those metrics. However, if you're using the car to move groceries and passengers, the Camry is a much better car.

Similarly, a RAID is better than a single drive when you compare sustained transfer rates. Nobody is arguing that the single drive is faster in that respect. However, when used in a gaming desktop, the single 150 gig Raptor pulls ahead and is a better drive for the task. It's only in specific situations that the RAID is better.
 
fugu said:
It's more that the benchmarks that a lot of review sites use aren't measuring the right things. For example, you could compare horsepower, torque, and quarter mile times of a Corvette and a Camry. The Corvette smokes the Camry when you use those metrics. However, if you're using the car to move groceries and passengers, the Camry is a much better car.

Similarly, a RAID is better than a single drive when you compare sustained transfer rates. Nobody is arguing that the single drive is faster in that respect. However, when used in a gaming desktop, the single 150 gig Raptor pulls ahead and is a better drive for the task. It's only in specific situations that the RAID is better.
Click to expand...

Thats about the best way I've ever heard it put.
 
Just wanted to be a jerk and add that "RAID0" isn't Redundant...it's striping...with no redundancy. :p

But I'm sure everyone already knew that. :D


Tom
 
Vertigo Acid said:
Well, averaged used price is $130-150 right now for the 74gb used, and you can get a brand new w/ full warrenty 150 for $300 right now. Seems like a no brainer.

wewt, post 4096 ^_^
Click to expand...
Wow, you got robbed. I got a pair for 200 SHIPPED With 4 years of warranty left. For me it was DEFINITELY a no-brainer...
 
unhappy_mage said:
Exactly. Raid 0 is to disk storage as rice is to cars. Good in theory, but IRL it doesn't work out so well.
Click to expand...
Rofl...


Its comments like this that keep me coming back to [H].
 
The overwhelming opinion seems to be that I should return the 740's, and go for a 150 instead... I am struggling with the idea.

My system is about a month overdue as far as building is concerned, and I have blown my budget for all my parts for it.

Let me put out one more question for everyone here then. Is the difference between my 74's in raid, and the 150 going to be similar to the difference between a GeForce 7800 GTX, and a 7800 GT? I bring this up, because as far as I can remember, the 7800 GTX is sure as hell faster, but as far as computing goes, not processor can load up 7800 GTX's to use to their full capacity.

And even with the increased speed of the 150's, am I seriously going to see a huge performance difference? Unless I am going to see a dramatic increase in speed, in the range of 20-30 seconds saved in the more intensive tasks ( like loading areas in WoW, and levels in BF2, as well as 3D modeling apps and photoshop) then I personally dont think its really worth all the hassle right now.

There is no question that the 150 is better, but at what extent is it better?

And as far as failing drives go, I have a external backup drive I use to backup my files weekly, so data loss is not a concern. And regardless, if I was to lose one drive in a raid 0 with the 74;s, I would be jsut as screwed as if I lost the single 150.

So, shorthand version, will I see a dramatic difference between a raid 0 with 740's, and a single 150?
 
Screw it man.. Dual drives are a pain to deal with and once you've lost all your data you won't ever want to do it again.. Even if you are backed up and just reinstalling its a pita.

If you are hellbent on keeping the drives, which you seem to be, don't do a raid 0. The benefits just aren't worth the trade offs. And anyone who tells you that a raid 0 system is faster then a non-raided config IN GAMES AND DESKTOP APPLICATIONS is lieing. They are so damn close its not even funny.

Only in benchmarks and server applications will you see a difference. And no, your gaming in WoW and BF2 is not a server application.

Keep the 74's since you have them, but don't raid 0 them. If you care enough to get the very best then rma\sell off or whatever the 74's and get the 150. It is a better drive.
 
I am not hell bent on keeping them, I am jsut wondering if the performance difference will be worth all the hassle

and wait, I will lose performance if I run them in raid 0?
 
I'll say it again. Single 150. Only thing 74s in RAID-0 will be good for is sequential file transfers. Only really useful for video/photo editing with very large files.
 
silentwolf
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. I just got 2 of the newer firmware 74's and have not yet installed them. So, I keep seeing that the 150 single is supposedly faster, though I'm not convinced that it will make a difference. I think I'll keep the 74's for now and later when the 150's price drops maybe go with it then. So, will 2 150's RAIDED be faster than 1? I bet yes and everyone here who is saying don't do RAID will be when the 150's prices come down.
 
gman said:
So, will 2 150's RAIDED be faster than 1? I bet yes and everyone here who is saying don't do RAID will be when the 150's prices come down.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think it will be faster for?
 
Talonz said:
That's also a $600+ PCI-Express RAID card that you're looking at. The disadvantages only increase when you go to a motherboard or software based solution without a dedicated memory buffer.
Click to expand...

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_con...r150raid&page=5

Just glancing over that review, it seems to be showing that 2 74 GB raptors are pulling ahead of a single 150 in most of the tests.

As much as the 150 is faster, I might be siding with gman, and just sticking with the 740's, and upgrading to the 150's down the road when they are less expensive, and I need more storage.

It seems to me that its a bit of a crap shoot, and a back and forth affair as far as how much performance will be gained by switching.
 
EnderW said:
Try looking at what they're benchmarking instead of just the pretty pictures.
Raptor 150 will win in the vast majority of real world applications. Raptor 74 RAID0 will win in a few specialized scenarios, and in synthetic benchmarks dealing with transfer rates and such.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't trust GamePC as far as I can, and have, thrown them. They're the first site I've actually blacklisted. They're using every possible advantage for raid 0, testing only synthetic and not real-life benchmarks, and generally not giving a fair shot to the single disk. Not even worth reading the whole thing.

 
They're using every possible advantage for raid 0, testing only synthetic and not real-life benchmarks, and generally not giving a fair shot to the single disk. Not even worth reading the whole thing.
Click to expand...

unhappy_mage, why would they do that? I detect some loathsomeness in your statement. Why do you detest them so?

silentwolf
Click to expand...

These guys don't think the GamePC results mean much because they're not Real World game benchmarks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top