Raptor vs Maxtor 16MB...

[stevty2889]

The 300gig of maxtor is obviously a bit better bang for the buck, but I'll never buy a maxtor drive again, I've never had any other brand fail on me, and every maxtor I've used has died. I still have some 250mb western digitals from the early 90's still running, but never had a maxtor last more than a year.

 

[Melchior]

I'm pretty sure 16mb cache = no different in performacne than 8mb. Someone prove me wrong?

Limiting factors in HDs are the Seek times and RPM, past 8 mb cache.

 

[PascalT]

I'd get a seagate personally.

if you want speed tho, Raptors can't be beat in the ATA world.

 

[w00t]

Originally posted by: Melchior
I'm pretty sure 16mb cache = no different in performacne than 8mb. Someone prove me wrong?

Limiting factors in HDs are the Seek times and RPM, past 8 mb cache.

the maxtor is faster because of the 16mb cache and ncq also ata150.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2094&p=6

read the whole review if i were ya

 

[PascalT]

Originally posted by: w00t

the maxtor is faster because of the 16mb cache and ncq also ata150.

it might be faster but certainly not because of ata "150"

most ata drives barely go over 60mb/sec at peak.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
The 300gig of maxtor is obviously a bit better bang for the buck, but I'll never buy a maxtor drive again, I've never had any other brand fail on me, and every maxtor I've used has died. I still have some 250mb western digitals from the early 90's still running, but never had a maxtor last more than a year.

And I have had EVERY Western Digital drive I've ever owned (three) go belly up.

Where as I've owned no fewer than six Maxtor's which have NEVER had a single problem (knock on wood). Some I've had for over six years!

So I guess your anecdotal study is cancelled by mine.

 

[ManBearPig]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Depends on the type of system I am building... but generally speaking, I'd get a Maxtor DM10 over the Raptor...

...oh wait, I already did

aye, same here.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Melchior
I'm pretty sure 16mb cache = no different in performacne than 8mb. Someone prove me wrong?

Limiting factors in HDs are the Seek times and RPM, past 8 mb cache.

All the reviews show otherwise. The DM10s are hands down the fastest 7200 RPM drives around.

 

[Amaroque]

I'm think going to pick up two of these, and replace the 200 GB Caviar's (in my sig) I have. I think they will compliment the Raptor's well.

 

[stickybytes]

even at 74gb, the raptors are on the small side. unless your planning to put only os and programs on the raptor the maxtor will be a much better storage solution. as for the speeds, i went from a seagate 80gb 2mb to a maxtor 160gb 8mb and the difference was definetely noticeable. i don't know where it stands in lines with the maxtor or raptor though.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Stangs55
maxtor makes the crappiest parts I've ever used

In my life:
3 maxtor drives - all 3 failed w/in 2 years.

2 years? wow, you're lucky. most of the junk I get from them lasts less than a year, with a good bunch of them also being about 13 months old, about 1 month out of the crappy warranty of 1 year. :thumbsdown:

 

[Penth]

I plan on picking up a raptor as my boot/application drive. I've got a server for all my large files and I picked up a 160GB WD drive from Best Buy on Black Friday, so I've got all my bases covered. I guess for pure speed, the raptor, if you need more space, the Maxtor.

 

[TazExprez]

I wonder when other companies are releasing 16MB cache drives?

 

[Amaroque]

I would like to see a 10,000 RPM, NCQ, 16 MB cache, SATAII drive.

 

[morkys]

What is NCQ and do I want it?

How does a Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA150 200G 8M 7200rpm (#ST3200822AS) perform vs Maxtor 16 MB cache drive? Is it worth it to get the NCQ drive vs the non-NCQ HD? Whats the big difference?

Generally, Seagate performance is fast and reliability is good? Seagates reputation is good?

thanx for the info

 

[edmundoab]

Originally posted by: w00t

Originally posted by: Melchior
I'm pretty sure 16mb cache = no different in performacne than 8mb. Someone prove me wrong?

Limiting factors in HDs are the Seek times and RPM, past 8 mb cache.

the maxtor is faster because of the 16mb cache and ncq also ata150.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2094&p=6

read the whole review if i were ya

you were talking about the MAXLINE III rather then the diamondmax 10?
i know the maxline cost slightly over $300
but diamondmax is just like $192 something like that

which is about the price of the Raptor 74GB.. ( well the raptor being slightly cheaper )

 

[morkys]

I notice that the Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA150 200G 8M 7200rpm (#ST3200822AS) is tested against the fast Raptor drives etc. For a "regular" SATA drive I imagine its fast. I picked one up

 

[Amaroque]

The Raptor (4.5 ms seek) edges out the Maxline III (9.3 ms seek) in throughput. Plus it has lower seek times, which is what makes a drive "feel" faster.

The lower seek times will beat the 16 MB cache on a windows system. Too many random requests with small files (which is where seek times are important), that's why RAID doesn't help regular windows users much.

 

[CraigRT]

I'd go with the Raptor, I wouldn't trust a Maxtor hard drive with 1 byte of my data.

 

[JBT]

I've got a Raptor that just started getting "bad sectors" toward the end of the drive. I have almost had the drive for a year The good news is WD 2 day'd me a replacement and the new one is already installed and working like a charm. While the old one is sitting in the return box.

I can notice the difference between my Raptor and my Seagate 7200.7w/NCQ 200GB drive. The Raptor is still a bit faster. The seagate is also fast just not as fast. If you don't need much storage or already have a storage drive I would grab the Raptor. If not then go for the a larger 7200 RPM drive.

 

[edmundoab]

so then could we safely say that the significant pros in this is the space then.
I don't see myself investing 300 bucks for something that doesn't perform as good as I think it would then.

 

[TomKazansky]

Originally posted by: Stangs55
maxtor makes the crappiest parts I've ever used

In my life:
3 maxtor drives - all 3 failed w/in 2 years.

i concur, maxtor is horrible.

 

[Haphazard]

Another interesting comparison would be noise. Those who have or have had both the Maxtor DM 10 and the Raptor II, is the Raptor noisier by a large margin? Both in terms of idle whine and seek 'crunch'? The only thing hodling me back from going w/ a Raptor as my system drive is concern over the noise (I'm trying to build a quiet rig).

cheers.

 

[tallman45]

Bought a 250gb Maxtor for $138.99 last week a great deal when you consider a 74gb rapter is $20-$50 more.

The platter density also plays a role in speed of access, I loaded the OS on an outer 10gb partition and things are snappy fast.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: infestedgh0st

Originally posted by: Stangs55
maxtor makes the crappiest parts I've ever used

In my life:
3 maxtor drives - all 3 failed w/in 2 years.

i concur, maxtor is horrible.

And I demur. Maxtor is laudable.

I've owned 3 Western Digitals - ALL Died within 1 to 2 years.

I've also owned half a dozen Maxtors, some for many years. Not a single lost bit of data, and going strong.

So... there's little point in anyone's anecdotal evidence.

Get the real scoop from those who analyze HD reliability for a living.