2nd Generation 37GB Raptors DO NOT EXIST...

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: beatle
The Raptor destroys SCSI in a price/performance race. Heck, it beats ALL drives in the Officemark High End benchmark. In Bootup and Gaming, it's beaten by SCSI, but only by 10-15%. Servers are still the domain of SCSI, however, which is no surprise. For a few dollars more, maybe I'd bite. For over 2x the price? Not a chance!

FWIW, the servers @ work with RAID 5 15k rpm MAS drives do not feel all that quick when doing one thing at a time (which the performance profile of many desktop users.)

Seagate 73GB 10,000RPM SCSI Hard Drive, Model ST373307LC, OEM Drive Only $339.00

How's that twice the price of $272?

Controller.

A $200+ scsi controller isn't a very good comparison to the built-in SATA on motherboards.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

A $200+ scsi controller isn't a very good comparison to the built-in SATA on motherboards.

Where the hell do you live?

You can pick up a LSI/Adaptec U160 controller for under $40 new. Even U320 controllers hover around $100.

 

[sharkeeper]

You can pick up a LSI/Adaptec U160 controller for under $40 new. Even U320 controllers hover around $100.

This is exactly why people complain about how "slow" a SCSI system feels. If you have the cash to buy a bucketload of 15k drives, for heaven's sake spend another grand for a decent controller and put 128+ MB of cache on it! It will absolutely smoke anything previously mentioned. Unless all you do is install Windows and Office all day...

Hitching a low end HBA to a screaming 15k drive like the X15.3 or MAS is no different than driving a Viper with the handbrake engaged! You [really] should not do that!

Cheers!

 

[silverpig]

The thing about the raptors is they fit a niche market. There is a large gap between the fast ATA drives and the modern SCSI ones. The raptors fit in that gap very nicely, both in price and in performance.

 

[Pariah]

How's that twice the price of $272?

The 73GB Fujitsu MAS is $520 which is pretty close to double. Still, I don't know what any home user would need with 73GB of high RPM storage. For $272, I would much rather have an 18GB MAS along with a 120GB of 7200RPM storage.

Shuttle, your views on storage purchases are unrealistic, and completely out of touch with anyone who uses an ounce of sensibility when buying storage. If everyone could afford your ridiculous recommendations, ATA wouldn't even exist instead of being by far the volume leading standard.

 

[sharkeeper]

Shuttle, your views on storage purchases are unrealistic, and completely out of touch with anyone who uses an ounce of sensibility when buying storage. If everyone could afford your ridiculous recommendations, ATA wouldn't even exist instead of being by far the volume leading standard.

Some people have true needs, others wants.

Those that have the needs find the means to purchase what they really need.


Cheers!

 

[Pariah]

Thanx for that worthless state the obvious piece of wisdom.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: shuttleteam

Shuttle, your views on storage purchases are unrealistic, and completely out of touch with anyone who uses an ounce of sensibility when buying storage. If everyone could afford your ridiculous recommendations, ATA wouldn't even exist instead of being by far the volume leading standard.

Some people have true needs, others wants.

Those that have the needs find the means to purchase what they really need.

Cheers!

I think that's a good point.

 

[sunase]

I agree with Pariah, I have a pair of small 15k SCSI drives that do awesome things with my OS/programs/paging and would take a small 15k drive over a large 10k any day. Raptors seem a waste of money being both slower than what us performance folks use and smaller than the run of the mill IDE drives that are good for media storage and what not.

 

[NFS4]

Why should I pay out the a$$ for a high buck SCSI controller and a 15,000 RPM SCSI drive (or even a 10,000 RPM SCSI drive) when I can hitch a 10,000 RPM 74GB Raptor to my onboard SATA (at no additional cost to me) and split the difference between 10,000 RPM SCSI and 15,000 RPM SCSI drive in performance (according to Storage Review).

Face it, Raptors coupled with onboard SATA are about the best bang for the buck out there if your looking for speed.

 

[Dug]

suppose if you're stuck in the low end with onboard SATA and no PCI-X chipset, they'll do ok.

Around here, I bet that's at least 99% of us.

Looking at storage review and what most of us use our computers for, i.e. single user, there's no doubt that the Raptor is the #1 choice with some consideration to cost.

Not many people will dump ~$650-$700 for 1 drive that can only marginally beat the Raptor.

The raptor scored the following
Bootup #2
Office Mark #4
Gaming #3
Highend Drivemark #2

Transfer rates #2 and #3

None of which were total blowout's by any means.
In fact I would be currious to see how a Raid0 of two 36Gb's would do.

And the best part- Noise level being 9db lower...
You can't keep me in a room with noisy scsi drives when I'm trying to get work done.

Almost forgot- I hate how long it takes to get through a scsi card's bios on bootup.
I'll take the 15 second boot up time of the Raptor.

 

[Pariah]

Not many people will dump ~$650-$700 for 1 drive that can only marginally beat the Raptor.

For $300 you can get a 36GB 15k drive and SCSI card, which is only marginally more expensive, and plenty of space for any applications that would benefit from the higher RPM's (ie, not storing MP3's, DIVX, pr0n...).

And the best part- Noise level being 9db lower...

I don't know where you are getting that number from, but if it is SR, then it's a pretty meaningless comparison, as their measurements aren't really of any use, even by their own admission. The current generation 15k drives are quiet enough to only be a distraction to the paranoid.

Almost forgot- I hate how long it takes to get through a scsi card's bios on bootup.

I don't know what cards you have used, but I use both Adaptec and Tekram cards and the SCSI boot process adds no more than 4-5 seconds to the boot process. All you have to do is disable scanning of all the ID's that have no device on them in the card BIOS.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Not many people will dump ~$650-$700 for 1 drive that can only marginally beat the Raptor.

For $300 you can get a 36GB 15k drive and SCSI card, which is only marginally more expensive, and plenty of space for any applications that would benefit from the higher RPM's (ie, not storing MP3's, DIVX, pr0n...).

And the best part- Noise level being 9db lower...

I don't know where you are getting that number from, but if it is SR, then it's a pretty meaningless comparison, as their measurements aren't really of any use, even by their own admission. The current generation 15k drives are quiet enough to only be a distraction to the paranoid.

Almost forgot- I hate how long it takes to get through a scsi card's bios on bootup.

I don't know what cards you have used, but I use both Adaptec and Tekram cards and the SCSI boot process adds no more than 4-5 seconds to the boot process. All you have to do is disable scanning of all the ID's that have no device on them in the card BIOS.

$119 for a 36 gig raptor and I have sata onboard already so it just makes sense.

 

[beatle]

I was comparing the Raptor to all drives. As Dug said, take a look at the performance database sorted by office, high-end, bootup, and gaming. The raptor comes in @ 4, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. It's not beaten by any 10k rpm drive in any of those, so you can't compare the cost of a 10k rpm scsi drive to it. If you want to talk about drives in the same performance class for SINGLE USER (that's you, unless you have a siamese twin) you have to compare prices w/15k rpm scsi drives. Even assuming you have a decent controller, that'll put you back 2-3 bills more than the raptor.

If you're the kind of user who runs defrag, virus check, and/or multi/demuliplexing of AV files on the same drive at the same time, I'd say you're a candidate for SCSI... or a proper schedule for those activities when you won't be using your computer. Nobody's saying SCSI sucks, but a lot are saying that it's a waste of money.

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Not many people will dump ~$650-$700 for 1 drive that can only marginally beat the Raptor.

For $300 you can get a 36GB 15k drive and SCSI card, which is only marginally more expensive, and plenty of space for any applications that would benefit from the higher RPM's (ie, not storing MP3's, DIVX, pr0n...).


Why bother. You may only need 36GB of storage. That's fine for YOU. If you want to pay more money for that, ok by me.

And the best part- Noise level being 9db lower...

I don't know where you are getting that number from, but if it is SR, then it's a pretty meaningless comparison, as their measurements aren't really of any use, even by their own admission. The current generation 15k drives are quiet enough to only be a distraction to the paranoid.


I have heard the current 15k drives and I can't stand them. I don't know anything about db, but I would easily say its twice as loud as a quiet drive.

Almost forgot- I hate how long it takes to get through a scsi card's bios on bootup.

I don't know what cards you have used, but I use both Adaptec and Tekram cards and the SCSI boot process adds no more than 4-5 seconds to the boot process. All you have to do is disable scanning of all the ID's that have no device on them in the card BIOS.

I've used the Adaptec and Tekram U160 cards, 4-5seconds sucks. I don't like the extra time, extra cost, and extra noise of scsi, which is exactely what I was pointing out earlier, and exactely what it is.

 

[XBoxLPU]

If you're the kind of user who runs defrag, virus check, and/or multi/demuliplexing of AV files on the same drive at the same time, I'd say you're a candidate for SCSI.

Though the new Raptors can handle those things fine with TCQ enabled ? matching a feature available on all contemporary SCSI drives, the new Raptor will feature tagged command queuing? that is, device-level reordering of outstanding requests for more efficient service times.

$119 for a 36 gig raptor and I have sata onboard already so it just makes sense.

werd!


$238 for a raid 0 of Raptors would be smoking

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: beatle
The Raptor destroys SCSI in a price/performance race. Heck, it beats ALL drives in the Officemark High End benchmark. In Bootup and Gaming, it's beaten by SCSI, but only by 10-15%. Servers are still the domain of SCSI, however, which is no surprise. For a few dollars more, maybe I'd bite. For over 2x the price? Not a chance!

FWIW, the servers @ work with RAID 5 15k rpm MAS drives do not feel all that quick when doing one thing at a time (which the performance profile of many desktop users.)

Seagate 73GB 10,000RPM SCSI Hard Drive, Model ST373307LC, OEM Drive Only $339.00

How's that twice the price of $272?

Storagereview direct comparison of those two drives (note SR used the 146 MB Seagate, but the performance shouldn't be too far off). See how the Raptor completely dominates in any of the non-server benchmarks? I wouldn't call any of their Desktop Drivemark tests even close in performance. Yes they are about the same price (ignoring the SCSI controller), but with the Raptor performance so much better for home use, I'd personally get the Raptor.

 

[Pariah]

$119 for a 36 gig raptor and I have sata onboard already so it just makes sense.

That's the old Raptor which does no belong in a performance comparison with 15k SCSI. The MAS was on average about 30% faster in the workstation benchmarks, which is a comparable to the difference between an oldschool P4 2.4GHz (non-HT, 533 bus) and a current 3.2GHz P4. $300 is right in line cost wise with high end CPU's, and video cards, so if you want good performance at a bargain price you can get the midrange Athlon XP 2700+ (Raptor). If you want the performance of the highend Athlon 64 (SCSI), you're going to have to pay for it.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Pariah

$119 for a 36 gig raptor and I have sata onboard already so it just makes sense.

That's the old Raptor which does no belong in a performance comparison with 15k SCSI. The MAS was on average about 30% faster in the workstation benchmarks, which is a comparable to the difference between an oldschool P4 2.4GHz (non-HT, 533 bus) and a current 3.2GHz P4. $300 is right in line cost wise with high end CPU's, and video cards, so if you want good performance at a bargain price you can get the midrange Athlon XP 2700+ (Raptor). If you want the performance of the highend Athlon 64 (SCSI), you're going to have to pay for it.

SCSI will never be mainstream though, it is made to suck up corporate profits not for the Desktop market.

I actually think $119 for 36 gigs is a lot, I'm certainly not going to spend $300 for a scsi hard drive. I recently picked up a 200 gig drive for $99...it's pretty fast for storage needs.

 

[knouri]

First gen 36.7 GB Raptors just dissapeared from Newegg, not even searchable. Maybe we'll start seeing some second gen Raptors in 36.7 GB in the next few weeks?

 

[madmaxr6]

i agree