Western Digital 36GB 10k RPM Raptor 16MB $74.47 shipped AR$15/GC

[InSuboRdiNaTioN]

Buy.com

$109.47
-$15 MIR
-$20 Google Checkout

Pretty hot. This is the new 16MB version, next cheapest on PriceGrabber is $110 shipped.
Free Shipping, Tax in CA. If only their price on the 74GB or 150GB version was this hot!

 

[Schadenfroh]

This one have the fluid bearings? I have the 1st gen raptor and it is rather loud.

 

[Craig234]

Sheesh, I may have to get this for gaming.

I assume that for the most benefit I'd have to put the OS and the game I want to run fast(like world of Warcraft) both on it, leaving most games on another drive...

As opposed to putting the OS on one drive, and the game I want to run fast on another.

I wonder about the noise, too.

 

[InSuboRdiNaTioN]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
This one have the fluid bearings? I have the 1st gen raptor and it is rather loud.

Yes, this is the next-gen model with FDB.

I own the previous gen WD360GD, and it is quite loud. I would expect this to be considerably quieter.

 

[DemiAjax]

Not sure if this is as hot, but newegg has a OEM 74 Raptor for $140 AR.

Link

 

[tracerbullet]

Hmm, I don't have any issues with my Raptor's, and they are from back when they first came out. I guess it's all in what you compare it to.

I have a pair running RAID0, so it's even faster yet. And man is it a huge difference. The pair makes for about 69GB formatted which is plenty for me. A bunch of programs and a couple games and I'm not even halfway there. I also have a large IDE drive that I use to make my backups onto, and for data storage (mp3's, my digitial picturs, etc.). I love this setup. Hope it gives some ideas - the speed IMO is well worth the price / gig ratio and the effort to swap over. No way I'd go back to a single 7200 of any size for primary.

 

[wizzack]

kudos OP, been looking for one of these at a nice price!

 

[xxrillixx]

exactly what i was looking for... in for 1! THANKS!

 

[DaneGuy]

Ok, I'm tempted. Can anyone tell me how much faster these drives are compared to normal 7,200? I can't find any comparison tests.

Thanks!

 

[InSuboRdiNaTioN]

Originally posted by: DaneGuy
Ok, I'm tempted. Can anyone tell me how much faster these drives are compared to normal 7,200? I can't find any comparison tests.

Thanks!

Totally depends on which 7,200 drive you're talking about. But generally speaking, considerably faster. The Raptors are as fast as they come for SATA/IDE.

 

[AmishPcFreak]

Thanks OP!! Building a new system and this will be perfect for the OS....

Here is a review of the previous generation at Storagereview

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200303/20030320WD360GD_1.html


APCFreak

 

[Craig234]

Boy, so many choices - ebay has a new 150GB Raptor for $167 shipped if no one else bids by tomorrow... my only reluctance on this is the noise and the small size, but since it can hold OS and a few key games I want to run fast...

No one answered whether the setup would run faster with the games on the same drive with the OS or on a second drive at 7200RPM.

 

[AmishPcFreak]

Loading times for games will be definately much faster if they are on the Raptor versus a secondary hard drive...

Other variables such as "frames per second" probably depend more on the GPU/CPU combination that you are running.

But load times, much better.

APCFreak

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: InSuboRdiNaTioN

Originally posted by: DaneGuy
Ok, I'm tempted. Can anyone tell me how much faster these drives are compared to normal 7,200? I can't find any comparison tests.

Thanks!

Totally depends on which 7,200 drive you're talking about. But generally speaking, considerably faster. The Raptors are as fast as they come for SATA/IDE.

First off; this is not a TC but a FYI.
I purchased one of the Raptors and happened to be able to compare it to one of the new perp Seagate i.e. 320GB.
There were several areas wherein the Seagate beat the Raptor quite soundly and only 1 area where the Raptor actually stood it's ground.
My recommendation is to spend another $20 and get 10x as much storage for your primary drive.

The tests were posted here in the AT Forums somewhere...sorry I do not remember where.

 

[AmishPcFreak]

Well, I am not a hard drive expert, but the WD360ADFD (the model being discussed in this thread) is exactly the same as the WD1500ADFD (the 150 Gb Raptor model). The rotational speed, buffer size, average latency, read seek time, write seek time, and data transfer rates are all identical. As far as I can tell, only the formatted capacity differs.

Here is a review of the WD1500ADFD at StorageReview.com done January 06 with the link going to gaming performance specifically. World of Warcraft is discussed....

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/WD1500ADFD_5.html

The WD1500ADFD gives the Seagate Cheetah 15K SCSI a run for its money---I would assume the WD360ADFD would do the same. Not bad for $75 after rebate....

Well, that is my 2 cents anyway. Maybe someone with more knowledge can correct me.


APCFreak

 

[DaneGuy]

Originally posted by: RideFree

Originally posted by: InSuboRdiNaTioN

Originally posted by: DaneGuy
Ok, I'm tempted. Can anyone tell me how much faster these drives are compared to normal 7,200? I can't find any comparison tests.

Thanks!

Totally depends on which 7,200 drive you're talking about. But generally speaking, considerably faster. The Raptors are as fast as they come for SATA/IDE.

First off; this is not a TC but a FYI.
I purchased one of the Raptors and happened to be able to compare it to one of the new perp Seagate i.e. 320GB.
There were several areas wherein the Seagate beat the Raptor quite soundly and only 1 area where the Raptor actually stood it's ground.
My recommendation is to spend another $20 and get 10x as much storage for your primary drive.

The tests were posted here in the AT Forums somewhere...sorry I do not remember where.

Which Raptor? Did it have a 16MB cache?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: AmishPcFreak
Loading times for games will be definately much faster if they are on the Raptor versus a secondary hard drive...

Other variables such as "frames per second" probably depend more on the GPU/CPU combination that you are running.

But load times, much better.

APCFreak

Ya, I'm just thinking more in terms of the tradeoffs between the game being on the faster drive, versus being on a drive working in parallel with the raptor rather than competing with the OS, if that makes sense. In the latter case, you're using the raptor for both OS drive activitiy and game activity, and I'm unsure whether that outweighs the faster drive.

 

[AmishPcFreak]

Ya, I'm just thinking more in terms of the tradeoffs between the game being on the faster drive, versus being on a drive working in parallel with the raptor rather than competing with the OS, if that makes sense. In the latter case, you're using the raptor for both OS drive activitiy and game activity, and I'm unsure whether that outweighs the faster drive.

Craig, I posted this question over on the StorageReview forums.. maybe someone with expertise will answer this question...

http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=23866

 

[jjmIII]

Ya, I'm just thinking more in terms of the tradeoffs between the game being on the faster drive, versus being on a drive working in parallel with the raptor rather than competing with the OS, if that makes sense. In the latter case, you're using the raptor for both OS drive activitiy and game activity, and I'm unsure whether that outweighs the faster drive.

I would want the game on the Raptor, or else why bother?
If your a gamer (I'm not) I think 37gb is too small. Get the 74gb Raptor.

The trick I use is putting the swap file (virtual memory) on the secondary drive.

BTW....Love my 37gb 8mb Raptor. You can "feel" the speed in daily use.

 

[xxrillixx]

Originally posted by: jjmIII

Ya, I'm just thinking more in terms of the tradeoffs between the game being on the faster drive, versus being on a drive working in parallel with the raptor rather than competing with the OS, if that makes sense. In the latter case, you're using the raptor for both OS drive activitiy and game activity, and I'm unsure whether that outweighs the faster drive.

I would want the game on the Raptor, or else why bother?
If your a gamer (I'm not) I think 37gb is too small. Get the 74gb Raptor.

The trick I use is putting the swap file (virtual memory) on the secondary drive.

BTW....Love my 37gb 8mb Raptor. You can "feel" the speed in daily use.

For the price right now, $75 for the 36GB raptor, why not run them raid 0... $150 - 2 36GB Raptors Vs. 1 74Gb raptor @ $150

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: xxrillixx

Originally posted by: jjmIII

Ya, I'm just thinking more in terms of the tradeoffs between the game being on the faster drive, versus being on a drive working in parallel with the raptor rather than competing with the OS, if that makes sense. In the latter case, you're using the raptor for both OS drive activitiy and game activity, and I'm unsure whether that outweighs the faster drive.

I would want the game on the Raptor, or else why bother?
If your a gamer (I'm not) I think 37gb is too small. Get the 74gb Raptor.

The trick I use is putting the swap file (virtual memory) on the secondary drive.

BTW....Love my 37gb 8mb Raptor. You can "feel" the speed in daily use.

For the price right now, $75 for the 36GB raptor, why not run them raid 0... $150 - 2 36GB Raptors Vs. 1 74Gb raptor @ $150

For OS loading it would be slower on the Raid 0, there is no purpose to run so many small files through a controller and stripe them, adds unnecessary delay

 

[Desslok]

You can also get another 30% off if you sign up and get the Buy.com CC.

Might be useful for some.

 

[DaneGuy]

Originally posted by: Desslok
You can also get another 30% off if you sign up and get the Buy.com CC.

Might be useful for some.

Only problem is it can take 30 days before they let you know if you get the card.

 

[xxrillixx]

Originally posted by: tallman45

For OS loading it would be slower on the Raid 0, there is no purpose to run so many small files through a controller and stripe them, adds unnecessary delay

Can anyone confirm / debate this??

 

[lookin4dlz]

http://faq.storagereview.com/SingleDriveVsRaid0

Looks like it depends on the application & how you might use the two drives if they weren't used in a Raid 0.