Which HardDrive?

Z

Zake202

Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
559
Atm I'm searching for an HDD for my new PC.

So far, I'm trying to decide between the Raptor 150gig ($170) or the Seagate 7200.11 500gig($75).

I'm open to other options, as these are the only ones I have read great things about.

Also, I'm very curious if a Raid-0 would be good with either of those or worth the extra money?
I've read mixed reviews that raiding the raptor doesn't have much of a performance increase.

Anyway, anything would help. Thanks~
 
WD6400AAKS faster than the seagate, almost as fast as the raptor, $80, and 640GB of space.
 
You haven't really given enough background - what's your budget and what will the computer be used for?
Is this an OS drive or will it be for storage? If storage, how much space do you anticipate needing? And so on.

Edit: Agreed, the WD6400AAKS would be a good all-round choice.
 
Concentric said:
You haven't really given enough background - what's your budget and what will the computer be used for?
Is this an OS drive or will it be for storage? If storage, how much space do you anticipate needing? And so on.

Edit: Agreed, the WD6400AAKS would be a good all-round choice.
Click to expand...

First, idk if anyone has looked but the 7200.11 has a buffer of 32MB over 16.

My budget is about $150 give or take $30

Mainly a gaming PC.

Anyway, it will be my primary OS drive.

I don't use more than 60gigs as is. But having SOME extra space would be nice for larger games coming out.

Also, is Sata2 really that much faster than Sata? From what I've read, it's only is if you are using big files or installs?

Are raptors worth the $ anymore? IS the speed that much of a factor for a gaming PC?
 
Despite the larger cache, the 7200.11 500GB drive is still outperformed by the WD6400AAKS. Cache isn' the only defining factor when choosing a hard drive. Factor in # of platters, platter density and design, etc.

Also, SATA2 isn't that much faster than SATA1 practically. And no, Raptors are not worth the money. In fact, many of the older Raptors are outperformed by the WD6400AAKS. So avoid Raptor drives. You would see faster load times with the new Velociraptor drives but that's pretty much it. You won't see an increase FPS with a Raptor drive and the faster load time is only a few seconds less.

So like everyone here has said, get the WD6400AAKS for $85. If you want a 5 year warranty and a stripped down version of Acronis TrueImage, but don't mind a tiny loss in speed in comparison to the WD6400AAKS, get the Seagate 7200.11 640GB drive for $90 instead. The 7200.11 640GB is based off a different design than the 7200.11 500GB drive and is almost as fast as the WD6400AAKS as a result.
 
Danny Bui said:
Despite the larger cache, the 7200.11 500GB drive is still outperformed by the WD6400AAKS. Cache isn' the only defining factor when choosing a hard drive. Factor in # of platters, platter density and design, etc.

Also, SATA2 isn't that much faster than SATA1 practically. And no, Raptors are not worth the money. In fact, many of the older Raptors are outperformed by the WD6400AAKS. So avoid Raptor drives. You would see faster load times with the new Velociraptor drives but that's pretty much it. You won't see an increase FPS with a Raptor drive and the faster load time is only a few seconds less.

So like everyone here has said, get the WD6400AAKS for $85. If you want a 5 year warranty and a stripped down version of Acronis TrueImage, but don't mind a tiny loss in speed in comparison to the WD6400AAKS, get the Seagate 7200.11 640GB drive for $90 instead. The 7200.11 640GB is based off a different design than the 7200.11 500GB drive and is almost as fast as the WD6400AAKS as a result.
Click to expand...

So the WD6400AAKS is as fast as a raptor, and is the 7200.11 640GB is almost as fast as WD6400AAKS?

Confusing a bit but I believe you about that drive. I'll just need to read a bit about it. Any obvious reviews I should read?
 
Can't seem to find a raptor score.

Isn't the average transfer rate what I should be considering?
 
Zake202 said:
First, idk if anyone has looked but the 7200.11 has a buffer of 32MB over 16.
Click to expand...

I have two of the Seagate 500gig 7200.11 drives and one of the 6400AAKS WD drives. The Seagate drives are nice and quick but the WD drive is faster even though it has half the cache. Sure, it would be nice to have 32 meg cache on the WD drive, but it doesn't actually need it. The higher aural density of the platters in the WD drive makes up for any difference in cache.

 
As everyone has said, the 6400AAKS Drive seems to be the way to go.

Would it benefit from a Raid 0 or not worth an extra $85?

Not sure if it would really benefit a gamer.
 
I usually like to think hard drive cache sort of like VRAM on a graphics card. While significant in their own way, cache has large diminishing returns when it comes to something like 32MB on a hard disk, and much like VRAM on GPUs that can't even utilize that much VRAM to begin with (advertising ploy to put "512 MB of RAM!"), cache doesn't make or break a deal, much like how the amount of VRAM doesn't solely determine a graphic's card's power, but other factors matter too, like its architecture, design, GPU, etc.

Much more significant than cache in determining the performance of a hard disk would be areal density and spindle speed, and for heat and reliability, the number of platters. The WD6400AAKS achieves these three phenomenally, with two 320GB (advertised, of course) platters at 7200RPM, the end result equates to something much above the standard norm for 7200RPM drives that start to encroach on Raptor transfer and sequential speeds (Raptors still have the access time advantage, however due to its 10,000RPM mechanics).

Compare the WD6400AAKS to the Seagate 640GB 7200.11 with 32MB of cache, compared to the WD6400AAKS's 16MB; a lot of tests and benchmarks appear to indicate that the Seagate's 32MB of cache doesn't really allow the drive to be significantly faster than the WD64000AAKS, if at all.
 
RAID0 will give you higher transfer rates and slightly worse access times.. If it is worth it will depend on what you use your PC for.

Since this is a gaming PC, the only game that I know of that gets a huge benefit from RAID0 right now is Age of Conan with its multi gigabyte level loads. (32GB install!!) Most other games get minimal or no measurable benefits. (eg: some people want the 3-4 second earlier load time in CS or other FPS games, but it doesn't affect any other part of gameplay for FPS games)

edit: Also consider the added risk of data loss and difficulty recovering data on a RAID0 system.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Yes, that is the correct drive. And it's $15 cheaper than when I bought it and it was a good deal and on sale when I bought it.

Click to expand...

Thanks =)

Definitely getting this drive.

The average read time vs raptors or the seagate 7200.11 are higher.
 
Good choice on getting the WD6400AAKS.

As much as I've loved my Samsung F1s, those WDs have become my overall favorite drive as of late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top