Quote:
Originally Posted by Manyak
But look at all the real world tests (the load times, file copy, and iPeak tests...and power consumption if that matters to you) and the the WD3200AAKS wins practically every one.
|
File copy tests you say? Raptor(s) win 9 out of 10 tests, Caviar wins one test, gets second on another, fails at the rest. Review quote (write tests):
Quote:
|
VelociRaptor file creation speeds are lower with the production firmware across all five test patterns. The VR150 remains an absolute beast, though.
|
Review quote (read tests):
Quote:
|
What the VelociRaptor lost in our file creation tests it gains back when it comes time to read those files. Not only is the VR150 faster than the engineering sample across the board, it's faster than any other drive we've tested.
|
File Copy - Write - Install, MB/s (higher is better):
VelociRaptor ES -- 65.64
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 65.29
Caviar SE16 -- 62.82
File Copy - Write - ISO, MB/s (higher is better):
VelociRaptor ES -- 65.98
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 65.18
Caviar SE16 -- 62.89
File Copy - Write - MP3, MB/s (higher is better):
VelociRaptor ES -- 65.94
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 65.10
Caviar SE16 -- 63.43
File Copy - Write - Programs, MB/s (higher is better):
Caviar SE16 -- 47.71
VelociRaptor ES -- 46.78
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 45.92
File Copy - Write - Windows, MB/s (higher is better):
VelociRaptor ES -- 43.57
Caviar SE16 -- 42.78
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 42.64
----------------------------------------------------------
File Copy - Read - Install, MB/s (higher is better):
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 104.54
VelociRaptor ES -- 102.02
Caviar SE16 -- 94.61
File Copy - Read - ISO, MB/s (higher is better):
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 117.10
VelociRaptor ES -- 114.89
Caviar SE16 -- 108.22
File Copy - Read - MP3, MB/s (higher is better):
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 102.08
VelociRaptor ES -- 100.04
Caviar SE16 -- 93.35
File Copy - Read - Programs, MB/s (higher is better):
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 88.26
VelociRaptor ES -- 87.35
Caviar SE16 -- 74.70
File Copy - Read - Programs, MB/s (higher is better):
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 81.28
VelociRaptor ES -- 79.56
Caviar SE16 -- 68.42
----------------------------------------------------------
iPeak Tests you say? Both VelociRaptors beat the Caviar in 7 out of 9 tests. Caviar seems to excel only in the two Virtual Dub import tests, and fails pretty miserably in some of the other iPeak tests. Review quote:
Quote:
|
The VR150 continues to reap the benefits of its final firmware through our second wave of iPEAK workloads. If the VelociRaptors have a preference, it appears to be for multitasking workloads that involve file copy operations.
|
Dual File Copy, Milliseconds (LOWER is better)
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 1.45
VelociRaptor ES -- 1.54
Caviar SE16 -- 1.93
Compress create + File Copy, Milliseconds (LOWER is better)
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 1.10
VelociRaptor ES -- 1.18
Caviar SE16 -- 1.48
Compress create + Virtual Dub Import, Milliseconds (LOWER is better)
Caviar SE16 -- 1.45
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 1.53
VelociRaptor ES -- 1.65
Compress extract + File Copy, Milliseconds (LOWER is better)
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 0.80
VelociRaptor ES -- 0.83
Caviar SE16 -- 1.27 (over 50% slower than VR150)
Compress extract + Virtual Dub Import, Milliseconds (LOWER is better)
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 0.79
VelociRaptor ES -- 0.79
Caviar SE16 -- 1.02
Outlook export + file copy, Milliseconds (LOWER is better)
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 0.97
VelociRaptor ES -- 1.02
Caviar SE16 -- 1.37 (around 50% slower than VR150)
Outlook export + Virtual Dub Import, Milliseconds (LOWER is better)
Caviar SE16 -- 0.93
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 1.21
VelociRaptor ES -- 1.26 (around 30% slower than the Caviar)
Outlook import + file copy, Milliseconds (LOWER is better)
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 1.60
VelociRaptor ES -- 1.72
Caviar SE16 -- 2.47 (around 50% slower than VR150)
Outlook import + Virtual Dub Import, Milliseconds (LOWER is better)
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 2.38
VelociRaptor ES -- 2.52
Caviar SE16 -- 3.00
------------------------------------------------------------
Power consumption you say? Are you on crack?! Both VelociRaptors win at both power consumption tests, and are about 15-25% more power efficient than the Caviar. And to quote the review:
Quote:
|
The VelociRaptor's power consumption is marginally lower with its production firmware. That the VR150 manages such dominant performance while drawing so few watts is nothing short of astounding.
|
Power consumtion, idle, watts (LOWER is better)
VelociRaptor ES -- 4.54
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 4.64
Caviar SE16 -- 6.17
Power consumtion, seek, watts (LOWER is better)
VelociRaptor ES -- 6.52
VelociRaptor VR150 -- 6.69
Caviar SE16 -- 8.43
----------------------------------------------------------------
In all seriousness, I don't see how you can possibly think the Caviar is better, whatsoever. As I said before, WD is not going to make a drive that is better than their flagship drive, unless they planned on lower the price of VelociRaptors by quite a bit. Did you even read the review????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manyak
And on top of that, the average access time you get in HDTach/HDTune or any other benchmark doesn't mean much. Let me put it this way. If you wanted to skip, say, 70GB of the drive. On a Raptor it would have to move all the way from the beginning to the end, taking around 15ms (double the average = max). If you wanted to do it on a drive with 320GB platters, it would only have to move 1/7th of the distance. On one of those 7200RPM drives that same seek would take 4ms.
So yes, the average seek time of the raptor is higher (over the whole platter). But in real world scenarios where it works by skipping certain amounts of data to get where it has to go, a high density 7200RPM drive will beat it.
|
That is why we have a thing called 'defrag', which magically sorts information in a way where skipping 70GB is rare, and compresses all information into the same area to keep seek times down.
Edited by lordikon - 10/26/08 at 7:59pm
lol
