If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive.
I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM). But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung) and set up a RAID 0 The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120. Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB I'm just a game player (C&C3). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
Frodo schrieb:
I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive. I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM). But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung) and set up a RAID 0 The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120. Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB I'm just a game player (C&C3). While RAID 0 micht (or might noct) be faster than a raptor, it is definately NOT better. RAID 0 has a 100% better chance for drive failure than a single drive... Personally, I'm using a raptor as boot drive and two "regular" SATA-drives (RAID 1) as data drive & (manual) backup for the raptor. Just my two cents... Jesco |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
Previously Frodo wrote:
I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive. I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM). But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung) and set up a RAID 0 The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120. Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB I'm just a game player (C&C3). Well, I don't think you will see much speed improvement either way. Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much. However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable. SKeepo the 300GB disk and invest the money in backup media. BTW, one thing that can help is to put the swap-file onto the raptor (raport as second disk) and use the rest of it as backup space. Better solution here is more RAM. Arno |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
Arno Wagner schrieb:
Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much. However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable. Startup time on my machine (after MB boot, that is) has increased considerably (about 15% I'd say) with the raptor. Yes, temperature is an issue which can be dealt with. Noise is not. I'm running a silent PC and am unable to hear the drive. In fact, the only noise I hear from my PC is the CD/DVD-drive... Jesco |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
"Jesco Lincke" wrote in message
Frodo schrieb: I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive. I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM). But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung) and set up a RAID 0 The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120. Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB I'm just a game player (C&C3). While RAID 0 micht (or might noct) Is this you babblebot? be faster than a raptor, it is definately NOT better. Wotunidjut. 'Better' than what: Obviously depends on his definition of 'better'. RAID 0 has a 100% better chance for drive failure than a single drive... Nope. Personally, Yerunidjut. I'm using a raptor as boot drive and two "regular" SATA- drives (RAID 1) as data drive & (manual) backup for the raptor. Just my two cents... And not worth even that. Jesco |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
I'm already at 2GBs of memory.
"Arno Wagner" wrote in message ... Previously Frodo wrote: I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive. I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM). But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung) and set up a RAID 0 The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120. Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB I'm just a game player (C&C3). Well, I don't think you will see much speed improvement either way. Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much. However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable. SKeepo the 300GB disk and invest the money in backup media. BTW, one thing that can help is to put the swap-file onto the raptor (raport as second disk) and use the rest of it as backup space. Better solution here is more RAM. Arno |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
Folkert Rienstra schrieb:
"Jesco Lincke" wrote in message Frodo schrieb: I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive. I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM). But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung) and set up a RAID 0 The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120. Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB I'm just a game player (C&C3). While RAID 0 micht (or might noct) Is this you babblebot? be faster than a raptor, it is definately NOT better. Wotunidjut. 'Better' than what: Obviously depends on his definition of 'better'. RAID 0 has a 100% better chance for drive failure than a single drive... Nope. Personally, Yerunidjut. I'm using a raptor as boot drive and two "regular" SATA- drives (RAID 1) as data drive & (manual) backup for the raptor. Just my two cents... And not worth even that. Jesco Oh, so I did make it into your spam-list... Was kind of starting to miss you. Welcome back to the "most stupid poster ever contest", Folkert! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
Previously Jesco Lincke wrote:
Arno Wagner schrieb: Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much. However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable. Startup time on my machine (after MB boot, that is) has increased considerably (about 15% I'd say) with the raptor. Increased??? I would say the raptor should be a little bit faster. Still, since 15% is about the margin were you subjectively start to notice something, it is not really significant. There might be something seriously wrong eith the disk, though. Yes, temperature is an issue which can be dealt with. Noise is not. I'm running a silent PC and am unable to hear the drive. In fact, the only noise I hear from my PC is the CD/DVD-drive... So they have gotten better. Good to know. Arno |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
Frodo wrote:
I'm currently using a Seagate 300GB SATA-II 7200.9 as my boot drive. I just picked up a WD Raptor 74GB (WD74ADFD) to replace it as the boot drive (will use a new install of Win XP Home OEM). But would it be better(faster) to just get two 160GB SATA-II 7200RPM hard drives (Seagate, WD or Samsung) and set up a RAID 0 The Raptor cost $140, but I can mail order two 160GB drives for $115-$120. Or I might just get the newer WD Raptor 150GB I'm just a game player (C&C3). get the WD Raptor 150GB for your new boot drive, and use one or both of the others as "secondary" drives use Acronis True Image 9.0 to clone the current boot drive bill |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Raptor or RAID?
Arno Wagner schrieb:
Previously Jesco Lincke wrote: Arno Wagner schrieb: Especially in gaming my impression is that the disks are not the bottleneck today, so a faster disk will essentially not change much. However it will be louder, hotter and generally less reliable. Startup time on my machine (after MB boot, that is) has increased considerably (about 15% I'd say) with the raptor. Increased??? I would say the raptor should be a little bit faster. Still, since 15% is about the margin were you subjectively start to notice something, it is not really significant. There might be something seriously wrong eith the disk, though. Yes, temperature is an issue which can be dealt with. Noise is not. I'm running a silent PC and am unable to hear the drive. In fact, the only noise I hear from my PC is the CD/DVD-drive... So they have gotten better. Good to know. Arno Sorry, should have been decreased of course. I had written "boot speed increased" before, but rephrased it. Obviously not enough of the sentence |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Raptor or RAID ? | Talal Itani | General | 17 | April 13th 07 10:30 PM |
RAID 0 vs Raptor | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 10 | February 20th 05 02:56 AM |
RAID on my Shuttle XPC? Or WD Raptor 74gig? | Chris Ciccarello | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | February 23rd 04 01:21 AM |
Raptor SATA, RAID 0? | Frank Weston | Overclocking | 1 | August 3rd 03 05:29 PM |
Raptor SATA Drives RAID 0? | Frank Weston | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | August 3rd 03 04:32 PM |