Recommendations on a speedy HDD?

[TrueWisdom]

Right now I'm running an IBM SCSI 15K Ultrastar, but a friend of mine wants it for his server, and I'd like to try something different anyway. My board (P4P800 Deluxe) has an onboard SATA controller, so I'm torn between getting a 36GB Raptor, or going for a 200 or 250 GIG PATA drive, all from Western Digital. After looking at storagereview.com, though, I'm more confused than ever: people say that the PATA drives are best for single-user scenarios (me), but then I see the Raptors beating my current Ultrastar in every test scenario possible. So, I know that the Raptor will definitely be faster than my Ultrastar, but will it be slower than the special edition drives? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

(Note: I don't have to stick with WD if you've been particularly impressed with another brand. I'm just trying to get a feel of whether my move should be to SATA or PATA, for overall speed and performance. Where it comes from makes no difference to me, as long as it doesn't crap out.)

Thanks.

 

[jfall]

If possible, then I would get a Raptor as a boot drive and a 100-200gig PATA drive for storage

 

[Regs]

72 Gig Raptors on their way...

 

[modedepe]

The raptor will definitely be faster than a pata drive.

 

[beatle]

Definitely get the Raptor if space is not a concern. If it is, a cheaper 7200 rpm drive makes for great storage.

 

[Slammy1]

There's a hit/miss problem with the S-ATA channel on the P4P800 that will not be fixed until the next SP release of XP. My Raptor performs pretty bad on this board, not at all worth the price premium. Problem is, it affects the IDE channel also when you have it. I would not recommend the Raptor for this board.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: Slammy1
There's a hit/miss problem with the S-ATA channel on the P4P800 that will not be fixed until the next SP release of XP. My Raptor performs pretty bad on this board, not at all worth the price premium. Problem is, it affects the IDE channel also when you have it. I would not recommend the Raptor for this board.

Why don't you get a Parallel ATA - Serial ATA adapter to put your raptor on your parallel ports? hehehe j/k

 

[TrueWisdom]

Hmm... so is the message I'm getting that the Raptor is faster, but not necessarily worth the buy considering my board? Should I hold out for the Raptor, or just slap down for the 200GB special edition? (Remember storage is not an issue--I'm concerned only with performance.)

 

[superbooga]

Are you keeping your SCSI controller?

If so, you should get probably get a another SCSI drive. You can get a Maxtor or Fujitsu 10K 36GB drive for about $20 - 30 more than a Raptor (but they're a bit faster than the Raptor in general). You can also get a 36GB 15k.3 for about $280, and a 36GB Atlas 15K for $310.

If not, get a Raptor. I'm am pretty sure that the 72GB Raptor will cost like $300 though. Double capacity on a 10K drive is MORE than double the price (odd, isn't it?).

 

[Yoshi]

Raptor, I doubt I'll every buy another SCSI drive after discovering these.

 

[boshuter]

If you really feel the need to downgrade....... get the raptor, at least they are cheap.

 

[TrueWisdom]

It's not really downgrading, in my case--the Raptor beats my IBM Ultrastar in *everything.* Also, I don't do much server-side stuff: for single-user scenarios, the Raptor is much faster. However, I was worried that maybe the 200GB 8MB WD would be even faster, for my general usage, but there seems to be a general disagreement with that sentiment. I guess I'll snag a Raptor, or maybe wait for XP SP2, per Slammy's advice.