[timmay7]

im thinking about buying a 10000RPM, cause everyones saying there so fast. Do these consume alot of power (not like i dont have enough

), and is performance/startup time and so on at all noticable?

 

[el mailman]

yes it most definetly worth it! in start up times u mite not see as a big of difference but u will see a large difference in transfer speed and loading games and other programs

 

[pbasil1]

yes they are very worth it... especially if u set up a raid 0 array... the best so far is the WD raptor 10,000 rpm drives...

 

[HrnyGoat]

They tested a quad-array of Raptors and got a sustained transfer rate of over 300MB/s!

 

[zerr]

I got the 74gb Raptors(2 @ Raid 0) but you should checkout the 150gb mind you the price is expensive

 

[Bluecow003]

Yes, the Raptor is a very nice drive to have, however you really do NOT need to do a RAID-0 setup.

http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives...snt-worth.html

Just get one Raptor, either the 74GB or the 150GB version. If you have the money then get the 150GB version. It performs better than the 74GB version, but both are definitely better than 7200RPM drives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HrnyGoat They tested a quad-array of Raptors and got a sustained transfer rate of over 300MB/s!

Where did you get that info? SATAII is the fastest available consumer grade interface for hard drives and it's max limit is 300 MB/s. SATA-150 is 150 Mb/s and SATAII is 300 MB/s. All Raptors are SATA-150.

 

[DataX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluecow003 Where did you get that info? SATAII is the fastest available consumer grade interface for hard drives and it's max limit is 300 MB/s. SATA-150 is 150 Mb/s and SATAII is 300 MB/s. All Raptors are SATA-150.

ehh...

Quote:

Originally Posted by HrnyGoat They tested a quad-array of Raptors and got a sustained transfer rate of over 300MB/s!

 

[zerr]

check this out

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=2101&p=5

 

[Bluecow003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DataX ehh...

Show me the info that supports that, even if it is a quad-RAID0, I'd just like to know where that info is.

 

[DataX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluecow003 Show me the info that supports that, even if it is a quad-RAID0, I'd just like to know where that info is.

This is what he was talking about: http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives...highlight=quad

 

[Bluecow003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DataX This is what he was talking about: http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives...highlight=quad

That is interesting. I noticed this in the article:

"Burst Transfer Rates are insanely high, since we used an Areca RAID controller card with 128 MB of onboard DDR cache, which is more representative of the controller speed rather than the disk speeds."

I wonder what the speeds would have been using an onboard RAID controller.

 

[DataX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluecow003 That is interesting. I noticed this in the article: "Burst Transfer Rates are insanely high, since we used an Areca RAID controller card with 128 MB of onboard DDR cache, which is more representative of the controller speed rather than the disk speeds." I wonder what the speeds would have been using an onboard RAID controller.

That's a good point, but if your spending $1200+ on a Quad RAID-0 Raptor setup, then why are you going to cripple your performance using the onboard controller? Probably even without a Raid setup, you'd get better transfer rates with a pci controller than with onboard.

 

[Bluecow003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DataX That's a good point, but if your spending $1200+ on a Quad RAID-0 Raptor setup, then why are you going to cripple your performance using the onboard controller? Probably even without a Raid setup, you'd get better transfer rates with a pci controller than with onboard.

Very nice point, although what consumer would spend $1200 on a RAID-0 setup? Very nice information though.

 

[hvacgaspiping]

Is there such a thing as a 10000 hard drive with an IDE/ATA interface? If not, then I`m stuck with 7200 rpms on my computer.

 

[Bys0n]

You cant use use raid 0 on a quad array, you can only have 2 drives for raid 0 unless your on raid 0+1 in which case its kinda a waste of 2 perfectly good raptors

 

[Bluecow003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bys0n You cant use use raid 0 on a quad array, you can only have 2 drives for raid 0 unless your on raid 0+1 in which case its kinda a waste of 2 perfectly good raptors

No, you can put as many drives as you want in RAID-0. I attached an example.

 

[Blue_Fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bys0n You cant use use raid 0 on a quad array, you can only have 2 drives for raid 0 unless your on raid 0+1 in which case its kinda a waste of 2 perfectly good raptors

LIES you can, WITHOUT a raid controller. windows xp comes with striping(raid0) funtionality built into, so that the os splits up the information not the controller. you can "technically" have up to 32 drives doing this.
EDIT: why hasnt WD have a hdd with 16mb cache? or do they and i have just not noticed.

 

[Blue_Fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluecow003 Yes, the Raptor is a very nice drive to have, however you really do NOT need to do a RAID-0 setup. http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives...snt-worth.html Just get one Raptor, either the 74GB or the 150GB version. If you have the money then get the 150GB version. It performs better than the 74GB version, but both are definitely better than 7200RPM drives. Where did you get that info? SATAII is the fastest available consumer grade interface for hard drives and it's max limit is 300 MB/s. SATA-150 is 150 Mb/s and SATAII is 300 MB/s. All Raptors are SATA-150.

dude if you divide 300Mb/s by four thats what EACH SATA channel would be getting not 300Mb/s for each SATA drive channel.

 

[ENTERPRISE]

Yes theses drives are definately worth it as they have a smaller seek time which then entails faster file location..And yes these HDD'S do have a larger power consumption than most.

 

[Bluecow003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue_Fire dude if you divide 300Mb/s by four thats what EACH SATA channel would be getting not 300Mb/s for each SATA drive channel.

Yes, it's been discussed here.