Fastest Boot Drive - Non-Raptor

[tedward]

I am putting together a new build & will be using a Seagate 7200.10 400GB SATA2.0 for the data disk. I want to buy another HDD to be used for the OS & Programs, also SATA.

All I really need is an 80GB drive for the OS, but I am interested in speed. It's not worth it to me to spend the $150-$200 for a Raptor, since I believe the real-world benefit to be quite small - therefore not worth the price premium.

Which SATA drive would be the best bang-for-the-buck Boot drive.

Please support your recommendations.

 

[Bobthelost]

Larger drive = faster drive.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: tedward
I am interested in speed. It's not worth it to me to spend the $150-$200 for a Raptor, since I believe the real-world benefit to be quite small - therefore not worth the price premium.

To each their own, but I have to disagree with you on this one.

 

[fkloster]

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: tedward
I am interested in speed. It's not worth it to me to spend the $150-$200 for a Raptor, since I believe the real-world benefit to be quite small - therefore not worth the price premium.

To each their own, but I have to disagree with you on this one.

I concur... whole heartedly dissagree...

 

[tedward]

To each their own, but I have to disagree with you on this one.

Please support your recommendations.

 

[tedward]

I concur... whole heartedly dissagree...

Please support your recommendations.

 

[fkloster]

It is my opinion that it is best to have a very fast (Raptor) small or medium drive to 'house' your system's O.S...

 

[tedward]

Originally posted by: fkloster
It is my opinion that it is best to have a very fast (Raptor) small or medium drive to 'house' your system's O.S...

Ok, but in comparing it to say, the Hitachi 7K160 80GB, do you think is worth paying 4 times as much???

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822145125


I realize it may spec out better, but I'd find it hard to believe that in real-world use, you'd really notice it.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

Originally posted by: tedward

Originally posted by: fkloster
It is my opinion that it is best to have a very fast (Raptor) small or medium drive to 'house' your system's O.S...

Ok, but in comparing it to say, the Hitachi 7K160 80GB, do you think is worth paying 4 times as much???

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822145125


I realize it may spec out better, but I'd find it hard to believe that in real-world use, you'd really notice it.

use the one you got, its slower than a raptor, but not an extra 200 bucks

 

[yuchai]

I think the 7200.10 is one of the fastest 7,200rpm drive out there right now so I'm not sure what you're getting at here...just partition the first 80GB or so of the drive for OS/Apps.

If you really need another drive for OS/Apps just get a smaller 7200.10 or latest gen Hitachi/WD. Doubt you'll see the performance difference between these 3.

 

[d3n]

Hmm, I think its just best to have your OS on a seperate disk controller than your data.

I would try for another 400 gig 7200.10 and leave your OS on that. If you can swing two more I would put them in a RAID 0 setup. I would likely partition out about 40 gigs for the OS. 100 for Apps 200 for games and the other 400 as working space. I'd archive everything to the third 400gig drive.

 

[Kinslayer777]

If you're not raiding does it still make any sense to parition? I remember a while back people'd use to partition a single HHD into two w\o raid but i cannot remember why.

 

[d3n]

Well, I have seen a server or app that is running something with logs. Somehow the log filled up the HD and the OS install was corrupted. I just think its good practice to seperate your OS with a partition.

 

[natto fire]

Not a raptor

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Not a raptor

Yet it's IDE... Even 7200 drives can "burst" faster than IDE can handle. No doubt it probably has a great sustained rate though... but it would be much better on SATA/300 or likely much much higher... anything less is a waste with a drive that can feed it.

 

[Mucker]

I have a pair of these in Raid 0: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822145082

http://members.cox.net/mucker/Hitachi.jpg
http://members.cox.net/mucker/Raptor.jpg

The Hitachi's in Raid 0 (64k stripe) feel faster than my Raptor, for less than a Benjamin.

 

[tcG]

Why is your Raptor benching slower than a regular SATA150 drive?

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: tcG
Why is your Raptor benching slower than a regular SATA150 drive?

Well first of all, that entry is the absolute maximum capacity of SATA/150, not an average SATA/150 drive.


As for why the burst speeds aren't reaching the maximum... I'm unsure of that myself, but Raptors, while blowing away other SATA drives in sustained speeds doesn't max out SATA/150 in bursts while other hard drives on SATA/300 can burst over 230MB/s. Not that these bursts mean much though, the situations have to be exactly right for anyone to see any perfromance benefit out of a somewhat sustained burst.

See theoretically, Raptors should be bursting about 150MB/s only being limited by the connection speed, because slower drives can burst much faster. It may have to do with some odd limiting mechanism (or maybe overhead) because all Raptors are SATA/150 devices, none of them support SATA/300. My guess is the next Raptor, if there ever is one, and is on SATA/300 will both burst and sustain better than any other SATA drive and won't have this limiting problem.

 

[tedward]

Originally posted by: d3n
Hmm, I think its just best to have your OS on a seperate disk controller than your data.

I would try for another 400 gig 7200.10 and leave your OS on that. If you can swing two more I would put them in a RAID 0 setup. I would likely partition out about 40 gigs for the OS. 100 for Apps 200 for games and the other 400 as working space. I'd archive everything to the third 400gig drive.

I'm confused, don't your 2 comments above contradict each other?

 

[SparkyJJO]

I agree with the OP, raptor isn't all that it is cooked up to be. Two of my friends both have raptors, neither are impressed. If it was just a little more then maybe but raptors are way overpriced for what little performance gain you get.

 

[farkedup2]

I stick with the seagate 320Gb drives for $95 and RAID them I'm under $200 AND have 640Gb of storage AND I'd stand by it being faster than the raptor in anything.

 

[tedward]

Originally posted by: farkedup2
I stick with the seagate 320Gb drives for $95 and RAID them I'm under $200 AND have 640Gb of storage AND I'd stand by it being faster than the raptor in anything.

I just happen to have 2-400GB 7200.10's. Another poster on OCforums is recommending these drives as well. I thought that a smaller drive would make a better dedicated boot drive, but maybe I'm wrong. I might just end up using my 400's.

 

[GrammatonJP]

Non raptor

 

[The Mailman]

im running dual 7200.10's

just stick with the seagate, the extra half second off of the boot time isnt gonna put a few hundred bucks back in your pocket

 

[Blain]

The Seagate 320GB 7200.10's are quiet, fast and cheap.