HOT! The new 74GB 16mb cache Raptors are $139 AMIR.

[Brahmzy]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: modempower

Originally posted by: Brahmzy
Actually at least one review shows the new 74GB beating the 150GB out in multiple tests.

The regular 74gb raptor beats the 150gb. The only thing the 150gb is faster in is large data transfers. The 74gigers are always faster in any small data and access times.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/raptor-wd1500/index.x?pg=1

C'mon dude, that's comparing the old 74GB to the new 150GB. Apples n oranges.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Brahmzy

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: modempower

Originally posted by: Brahmzy
Actually at least one review shows the new 74GB beating the 150GB out in multiple tests.

The regular 74gb raptor beats the 150gb. The only thing the 150gb is faster in is large data transfers. The 74gigers are always faster in any small data and access times.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/raptor-wd1500/index.x?pg=1

C'mon dude, that's comparing the old 74GB to the new 150GB. Apples n oranges.

You said - "The regular 74gb raptor beats the 150gb." So dude, I'm just showing you that you're incorrect with that statement.

Comparison between new 74gb Raptor and 150gb Raptor. Only review available at the moment. You can just follow the charts. http://print.tweakers.net/?reviews/621

 

[Brahmzy]

Dude, you're quoting the wrong dude. modempower said the "regular" I did not.

I said the "new". We're all good though.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Dude, you're right. My bad. It's all good.

 

[LukeMan]

Originally posted by: EKKC

Originally posted by: duragezic
I never was much of a fan of the Raptors, but with the new revision being pretty cheap (and I didn't realize it was right up there with the new 150GB, though I wouldn't consider a 36GB due to its small size, costs, and that its not much faster than modern 7200rpm drives) I might.

I hear these are pretty good for games. Would BF2 load a lot faster and have less stuttering? Or would I be better off going from 3x512mb to 4x512mb? I never see my max RAM usage go over 1.5GB, but it takes forever to load and I get some major freezes sometimes at the start of the game.

i have a RAID0 2-raptor partition and i install large games like HL2, BF2 on it. they load pretty fast. i have a third 300GB partition for those less load-intensive games

will 2 regular(old) 74gb raptors in raid really make a big difference in game load time over 1 raptor or other drive? Wanting to know since i just bought 3 74gb raptors a couple days ago.

 

[RMSistight]

Originally posted by: herbiehancock

Originally posted by: RMSistight
Seagate's Cheetah 15,000 RPM Serial Attached SCSI 3.0Gb/s FTW. 1.4 million MTBF. This drive will laugh at ANY consumer level storage and all of the Raptors....except for Fiber channel.

Only time I'll buy a Raptor is when it's 15K RPM and SATAII.

Seems you can only spout and thread crap about stuff you don't own or use, considering the rig in your sig. And comparing a $450 drive to a $140 drive? Get real.........but I suppose this is only what one can expect from the 15 year old know-it-alls on the forums here.

15 year old? I'll have you know my sh!t is on the way son. Damn LSI Logic and their sales department not getting back to me on a product they make. I was going to get the Raptor myself, but I found something much faster and better which is the Cheetah. Sure, it's not cost effective like the Raptor, but I'm looking for enterprise storage for my desktop.

 

[RMSistight]

Originally posted by: Bmott

Originally posted by: herbiehancock

Originally posted by: RMSistight
Seagate's Cheetah 15,000 RPM Serial Attached SCSI 3.0Gb/s FTW. 1.4 million MTBF. This drive will laugh at ANY consumer level storage and all of the Raptors....except for Fiber channel.

Only time I'll buy a Raptor is when it's 15K RPM and SATAII.

Seems you can only spout and thread crap about stuff you don't own or use, considering the rig in your sig. And comparing a $450 drive to a $140 drive? Get real.........but I suppose this is only what one can expect from the 15 year old know-it-alls on the forums here.

Funny thing is that we actually bought a pair of those 15k rpm drives for work, and they were such a pain. First We have a dell Precision 380, and it doesn't have any PCI-X slots, so the adaptec SCSI card was limited in bandwidth to the bandwidth of the stupid pci slot.

next to get around this we had to buy a msi logic PCI-EXPRESS x1 scsi card to finally unlock the performance of these drives.

so $1450 later (2 scsi drives + controller) we do some testing. Yes its fast. Then we start doing real world testing. And it is only an improvement of 5% on runtimes for our HUGE NASTRAN Models !!!!

so if you want to do a comparison from our company. dual 15,000 RPM SCSI is 5% faster then a single 10,000RPM Raptor and only costs $1300 more.

so save your cash and buy the raptor. We have them in every computer at work doing hard drive intensive code all day long, Super stable, super cheap, super high performance.

Yeah but what you're talking about is SCSI. Which specific type of SCSI are you talking about? Ultra-160? Ultra-320? SCSI-2? I'm talking about Serial Attached SCSI. There is a difference here. And also the controller card I'm getting is PCI-E x1 which is what you need like you indicated to fully maximize the bandwidth.

The Raptor can't hang with a 15K Ultra320 SCSI drive or Serial Attached SCSI. I was thinking about going fibre channel but it only works with other fibre channel drives. With Serial Attached SCSI, I can mix both enterprise level SAS drives with SATA drives at my desire.

 

[RMSistight]

Originally posted by: Brahmzy
+1...if you haven't owned one personally, ya just don't know.

I just can't understand the Raptor hatred thing. Put up any other drive next to it and see.

I'm not hating on the Raptor. I personally like it.

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: RMSistight
Seagate's Cheetah 15,000 RPM Serial Attached SCSI 3.0Gb/s FTW. 1.4 million MTBF. This drive will laugh at ANY consumer level storage and all of the Raptors....except for Fiber channel.

Only time I'll buy a Raptor is when it's 15K RPM and SATAII.

What is the cost of a SAS controller ? Since native SATA does not support SAS

 

[RMSistight]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: RMSistight
Seagate's Cheetah 15,000 RPM Serial Attached SCSI 3.0Gb/s FTW. 1.4 million MTBF. This drive will laugh at ANY consumer level storage and all of the Raptors....except for Fiber channel.

Only time I'll buy a Raptor is when it's 15K RPM and SATAII.

What is the cost of a SAS controller ? Since native SATA does not support SAS

A four port SAS PCI Express x1 slot controller from LSI Logic is about $180. Come to think of it, I think I'll hold off on my purchase. As of right now, SAS is at 3Gb/s. By early 2007, they are bumping it up to 6Gb/s. I'll wait until then.

 

[Zap]

Don't buy in 2007, because a few years after that they will increase the speed again, so better wait those extra years. :roll:

 

[Kung Lau]

Originally posted by: Zap
Don't buy in 2007, because a few years after that they will increase the speed again, so better wait those extra years. :roll:

Tagline worthy! And appropriate for about 25% of the responses in these tech discussions.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: modempower

Originally posted by: Brahmzy
Actually at least one review shows the new 74GB beating the 150GB out in multiple tests.

The regular 74gb raptor beats the 150gb. The only thing the 150gb is faster in is large data transfers. The 74gigers are always faster in any small data and access times.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/raptor-wd1500/index.x?pg=1

WTF *SUPER CONFUSED FACE*
How can someone say the regular 74gb raptor beats the 150gb. The OLD generation 74gb (doesn't matter what revision) loses in every test against the 150gb. The 150gb has native SATA and more cache, everything is BETTER.

The reason the new 74gb is beating the 150gb is because it is a 1 platter version of the 150gb. However, we can't be sure if they are shortstroked 150gb drives or not. If so, that will surely explain the speed boost.

 

[tallman45]

The new 74gb Raptors (8mb and 16mb cache) model numbers "NLR1" are single platter drives. They simply use one of the 2 (74.3gb) platters that the 150gb units holds.

Not sure how that can make a faster 74gb vs 150gb drive. Cooler, quieter, less current draw, yes.

Someone should post a review comparing the old / new 74gb and 150gb Raptors

 

[amdskip]

Are these new raptors just as loud as the previous ones? I can't stand the western digital hum noise.

 

[Brahmzy]

My Raptors run real quiet, of course they're mounted with rubber grommets.

There's already reviews/comparisons showing the new 74GB beating out the 150GB Raptor. Only in RAID0 vs. RAID0 does the 150GBer beat out the new 74GBer.

 

[RideFree]

I just compared the Raptor with the new 7200.10 Seagate perpendicular 320GB and the Seagate is considerably faster all across the board according to HD Tach.

 

[amdskip]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148140

Looks neat, I'm a big Seagate fanboy and I will be picking this up next time I upgrade my system.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: RideFree
I just compared the Raptor with the new 7200.10 Seagate perpendicular 320GB and the Seagate is considerably faster all across the board according to HD Tach.

Proof?

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: RideFree
I just compared the Raptor with the new 7200.10 Seagate perpendicular 320GB and the Seagate is considerably faster all across the board according to HD Tach.

Proof?

My word is proof enough.
I could care less whether or not you choose to believe it.
I simply reported what I saw.Seagate 320GB
Please look up your own Raptor chart for comparison.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: RideFree

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: RideFree
I just compared the Raptor with the new 7200.10 Seagate perpendicular 320GB and the Seagate is considerably faster all across the board according to HD Tach.

Proof?

My word is proof enough.
I could care less whether or not you choose to believe it.
I simply reported what I saw.Seagate 320GB
Please look up your own Raptor chart for comparison.

God we have the most fvcking retarded people on AT when it comes to hardware. If you even go into StorageReview saying such things you'll be ridiculed.

Here's the counterproof:

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/sto...gate/750gb_7200_10/hdtachraptor150.png

150GB Raptor. I think you were thinking of the OLD 74GB raptor. This is the NEW 74gb raptor, and its graphs are exactly like the 150gb raptor's, if not faster. Thank you have a nice day. Moreover, if you understand anything about hard drive benchmarking, HD Tach doesn't have a high reputation in that field.

Too bad I don't have a 7200.10, but when I do get my Raptor, I'll show you my HDTach of a 7200.8 vs 7200.9 vs Raptor 74GB ADFD.

 

[Bmott]

quote:
Originally posted by: Bmott

quote:
Originally posted by: herbiehancock

quote:
Originally posted by: RMSistight
Seagate's Cheetah 15,000 RPM Serial Attached SCSI 3.0Gb/s FTW. 1.4 million MTBF. This drive will laugh at ANY consumer level storage and all of the Raptors....except for Fiber channel.

Only time I'll buy a Raptor is when it's 15K RPM and SATAII.



Seems you can only spout and thread crap about stuff you don't own or use, considering the rig in your sig. And comparing a $450 drive to a $140 drive? Get real.........but I suppose this is only what one can expect from the 15 year old know-it-alls on the forums here.




Funny thing is that we actually bought a pair of those 15k rpm drives for work, and they were such a pain. First We have a dell Precision 380, and it doesn't have any PCI-X slots, so the adaptec SCSI card was limited in bandwidth to the bandwidth of the stupid pci slot.

next to get around this we had to buy a msi logic PCI-EXPRESS x1 scsi card to finally unlock the performance of these drives.

so $1450 later (2 scsi drives + controller) we do some testing. Yes its fast. Then we start doing real world testing. And it is only an improvement of 5% on runtimes for our HUGE NASTRAN Models !!!!

so if you want to do a comparison from our company. dual 15,000 RPM SCSI is 5% faster then a single 10,000RPM Raptor and only costs $1300 more.

so save your cash and buy the raptor. We have them in every computer at work doing hard drive intensive code all day long, Super stable, super cheap, super high performance.


quote:
Originally posted by: RMSistight

Yeah but what you're talking about is SCSI. Which specific type of SCSI are you talking about? Ultra-160? Ultra-320? SCSI-2? I'm talking about Serial Attached SCSI. There is a difference here. And also the controller card I'm getting is PCI-E x1 which is what you need like you indicated to fully maximize the bandwidth.

The Raptor can't hang with a 15K Ultra320 SCSI drive or Serial Attached SCSI. I was thinking about going fibre channel but it only works with other fibre channel drives. With Serial Attached SCSI, I can mix both enterprise level SAS drives with SATA drives at my desire.


sorry for the tangent guys,

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816118027

LSI Logic LSI00008 PCI Express SCSI RAID storage adapter RAID 0/1/5/10/50

is the card we needed to buy in order to get full performance out of our scsci hard drives. It is a "Dual-channel Ultra320 SCSI controller"

and yes there was only a 5% real world diff between the raptors when running NASTRAN models. each computer was the standard win xp, 4gb ram. yada yada..

The old card that was slow (only because we didn't have a pci-x slot on our computer which was a dell precision 380- only the more expensive model had the pci-x slots) was the Adaptec 29320A-R 64-bit/133MHz PCI-X SCSI Card

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: Brahmzy
My Raptors run real quiet, of course they're mounted with rubber grommets.

There's already reviews/comparisons showing the new 74GB beating out the 150GB Raptor. Only in RAID0 vs. RAID0 does the 150GBer beat out the new 74GBer.

Links to sites that reviewed the new NLR1 74gb raptors ???

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: Brahmzy
My Raptors run real quiet, of course they're mounted with rubber grommets.

There's already reviews/comparisons showing the new 74GB beating out the 150GB Raptor. Only in RAID0 vs. RAID0 does the 150GBer beat out the new 74GBer.

Links to sites that reviewed the new NLR1 74gb raptors ???

Linky

74gb in blue kills the 150gb in red.

The other 2 raptors are the previous generation 74GB 8mb cache raptors.

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: RideFree

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: RideFree
I just compared the Raptor with the new 7200.10 Seagate perpendicular 320GB and the Seagate is considerably faster all across the board according to HD Tach.

I simply reported what I saw.Seagate 320GB
Although I used the 10K raptor in my PC and benched it with the Seagate 7200.10 320 GB and the Seagate 7200.9 300GB and the Hitachi 250GB SATA 3.0

The $111 Seagate 320 Perp (none of these drives were in a Raid) gave considerably higher performance. It works for me, especially since it is also several times the capacity & 1/3 the price.