[statepkt]

That last graph deals with I/O of the drives, but what about transfer speeds of those setups. Has there been any testing on that?

This post has been edited by statepkt: 12 January 2006 - 12:15 AM

[stadi]

Hi! I asked WD about the differences of the two versions and i'm not sure what it means that they said to me. Maybe there really is some difference, or they are not saying the truth.

Q: "I'm interested in the new Raptor drives, and would like to know if there is any difference between the two models (except for the look). I mean is the Raptor X better optimised for deskop computers or is there no difference in the firmware?"

A: "Both the new 150 gig raptors have 16 MB of cache, NCQ, 1.5 Gigabits/ Second transfer rate, and a 4.6 ms seek time, and the same firmware. But the WD1500ADFD is the Enterprise version of the new Raptor, for use in RAID, servers, workstations and enterprise storage. It is optimized for use 24/7 and includes the RAFF technology. The Raptor X, clear cover, Gamer version is the other one. It does not have RAFF and is for use in desktops for fast performance. It is the WD1500AHFD."

[GBelter]

I have this new 150GB 10K Raptor 16MB cache drive being installed today in a new Hypersonic Fusion XGL workstation as the boot drive along with a pair of 500GB Seagate Sata-II NCQ 16GB cache drives (Raid 1). The builder advises the NCQ cannot be switched off. As a single desktop user I agree with your position in the article. How do I turn of the NCQ?


Great article!

[headshotu]

just wondering whether the new raptors will differ in firmware like the older raptors do(i.e. 00FLA1 & 00FLC0)??
i have a 36gig raptor w/00FLC0, does that mean it performes better than the older version(00FNA1)??
it'd be nice if you could include the 36gig raptor w/00FLC0 in the future for comparisons.

[Gilbo]

statepkt, on Jan 12 2006, 01:15 AM, said:

That last graph deals with I/O of the drives, but what about transfer speeds of those setups. Has there been any testing on that?

Transfer rates are not particularly relevant to performance. The most use a transfer rate test can offer is as a tool for distinguishing platter sizes between capacity revisions of a drive line.

headshotu, on Jan 12 2006, 09:14 PM, said:

just wondering whether the new raptors will differ in firmware like the older raptors do(i.e. 00FLA1 & 00FLC0)??
i have a 36gig raptor w/00FLC0, does that mean it performes better than the older version(00FNA1)??
it'd be nice if you could include the 36gig raptor w/00FLC0 in the future for comparisons.

Over the lifetime of the drive it is a certainty that the firmware will be modified.

[Shailesh]

I have an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with Sil3112 and two WD740GD in RAID-0. I want to get a single WD1500 instead. This is because the perfomance will be comparable for my usage pattern, and to allow my daily Norton Ghost backups to be restorable to any other single drive. Do you think the performance of the drive will be significantly different with a newer controller (like Sil3124 or NVRAID) on a newer motherboard?

[GBelter]

How do I turn off the NCQ? Workstation builder says it can't be turned off.

Mine is being installed in a new Hypersonic Fusion GXL workstation now.

This post has been edited by GBelter: 14 January 2006 - 12:17 AM

[cemal gurel]

Hi,
Maximum transfer rate of about 81MB/s not much high for me actually! It probably can give upto 60MB/s average read. If we assume that, there is no possibility of RAID for desktop systems, it might be the fastest drive for 'Single Drive' systems for a good fortune of money. But, a basic PATA RAID system by two 80GB 2MB cache 7200 drive, (by Seagate, WDC, Maxtor, Hitachi or Samsung no matter, currently available drives sold at the market!) gives upto 115MB/s maximum and 80MB/s average read for a budget & bargain system. You can get a little more space, with 1,33 faster average read, but half the price of a single 150GB WDC, compared with 2x80GB 2MB cache drives (as I have mentioned, HDD brand is not much important here!) including RAID 133 Card (by Promise, High Point or Silicon Intgrated Systems PCI cards from PATA connection or SATA as well etc.)

I mean, it is not so much fast, 4x expensive, not the only solution for a fast desktop. It is a good development with it's shiney window that I must say. (But I prefer mixed color of flashing led's inside the drive! Why not like ordinary 8, 9 or 12cm fans... hopefully guite sooner!)

If you really deserve it, it is logical to use them with SATA 300 system with RAID configuration. At that time it may reach maximum transfer rate of over 150MB/s, and average 120MB/s compared with RAID SATA 150 tranfer rate. But, using 2x150GB WDC may probably give maximum %10 performance gain over using it on a RAID SATA 150 system. For some, %10 is very important as you know! Another good thing is MTBF 1.2 Million hours.

Actually I have a PATA RAID system on a Digitus PCI RAID Card with Silicon Integrated Systems chip with 2xWDC 2500SB on a PCI bus with MTBF 1 Million hours. I have about 125MB/s maximum transfer rate with 90MB/s average read. NEW drive with RAID configuration is 1,33 faster than my current RAID system, but 0,6/1 of my total capacity with 2x expensive price! I do not want to critize the capacity and the price, everyone knows them. Results are obviously clear. Although, the current speeds are not too big, there is very little time left for PATA drives, SATA 300 is on the New Autoban. Of course sooner or later, it will achieve better results with more speedy future drive units. I think, Windows Vista will really deserve RAID configurations to run marginally between 2006 to 2010 period. I like to see the achievement of HDD units, as well as new software. Hope you all a happy new year with Windows Vista soon....

[Eugene]

cemal gurel, on Jan 14 2006, 04:48 PM, said:

snip

I think you fail to realize how little STR matters in APPLICATION-LEVEL performance.

[shoek]

Eugene, on Jan 5 2006, 08:49 AM, said:

Reading reactions to the reivew around the net has been quite interesting.

...

Quote

Twice the price of a 74GB? For that much money I could get 2 WD740GDs and RAID them for much better performance!!

Wrong. Here's a look at how two RAIDed configurations of the WD740GD on a basic RAID controller compare vs. a single WD1500ADFD:



These figures were drawn from a large database of results compiled in perparation for a future article that will examine the performance of the WD740GD, the Seagate NL35, and the WD4000YR in multidrive configurations operating off of three separate RAID controllers. As demonstrated above, even a four-drive RAID0 array matches the WD1500 in only one out of five cases.

Eugene,
How do you respond to GamePC.com's recent Raptor 150 review, where they show that a dual, triple, or quad RAID0 array of WD740GD's beats a single Raptor. They used the highly respected Areca 1220 PCIexpress card. I assume you used a Silicon Image SATA card? How do you think the nForce4 RAID would fare?



Thanks,
shoek

This post has been edited by shoek: 16 January 2006 - 01:20 PM