brenth

Raptor 740GD-00NLR1

Recommended Posts

I just got two Raptor 740GD-00NLR1 and was looking for this model in the performance database. Its does not seem to be in there.

The only models i see are:

00FLA1

00FLC0

Any idea how my model compares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
I just got two Raptor 740GD-00NLR1

That's an interesting find...

The only WD drive which currently uses xxNLRx code is the new Raptor WD1500ADFD-00NLR0

So I think your drive is just based on this new construction but equipped with 8MB cache and TCQ.

If it was identical little brother with 16MB cache and NCQ then its name would be WD740ADFD-......

I still speculate your drives are very similar in performance to the new Raptors ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be good news.

I ordered them last week from NewEgg to replace my old 36GB raptors...(which i have sold :-) )

BTW the manufacture date is 26 Apr 2006.

Edited by brenth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888

Some additional characteristics which may be useful in comparing...

- Does it have the usual white/yellow sticker-label in almost full-rounded form? And how does the bottom of the drive looks like? If to compare to these photos:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/06/wd1...lead/page5.html

- What is the DCM string printed on label? (although I do not have database for these and do not have a deciphering for it, it may be interesting to compare if somebody posts here also the DCM string for FLC0 version of 740GD and also for 740ADFD and 1500ADFD, too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888

Thank you for these good photos!

Yes, your drive looks 100% like WD1500ADFD from both sides, including the PCB.

Now, I think there's really only one possible summary - WD has recently moved all of its Raptors on new contemporary platform! Of 74GB models the version with 16MB cache is named WD740ADFD and version with 8MB cache is named still WD740GD, but more exactly WD740GD-00NLR1 although there's very little common remained with the old 74GB Raptors...

Anyway, very good news!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all--hello... new member on the forum. Second of all--now I'm really curious about this. I just got two of these drives for a RAID-0 setup, but decided after some late-coming research that I should probably return them and just get 1 of the new 74GB drives. Doesn't seem like the RAID-0 will really be worth it as a gamer in the end. However, the restocking fee is going to cost me 48 bones, the WD740ADFD drives are $40 more after considering the MIR for these drives currently on newegg and if in the end these drives wind up performing about as well as the new WD740ADFD drives, I should just keep them.

I'd really kick myself for RMA'ing these in and losing some money all for drives that in reality perform close to that of the WD740ADFD. Thoughts? I'm leaning towards canceling the RMA request and just keeping these--even if I just run them as two seperate drives. I got these from newegg just a couple days ago as well, BTW.

Edited by Swad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all--hello... new member on the forum. Second of all--now I'm really curious about this. I just got two of these drives for a RAID-0 setup, but decided after some late-coming research that I should probably return them and just get 1 of the new 74GB drives. Doesn't seem like the RAID-0 will really be worth it as a gamer in the end. However, the restocking fee is going to cost me 48 bones, the WD740ADFD drives are $40 more after considering the MIR for these drives currently on newegg and if in the end these drives wind up performing about as well as the new WD740ADFD drives, I should just keep them.

I'd really kick myself for RMA'ing these in and losing some money all for drives that in reality perform close to that of the WD740ADFD. Thoughts? I'm leaning towards canceling the RMA request and just keeping these--even if I just run them as two seperate drives. I got these from newegg just a couple days ago as well, BTW.

There is some performance benefit to having 2 separate drives instead of a single larger drive. So, even if the single 150Gb drive benchmarks faster than a single 74Gb drive, having 2 74's could actually be faster at certain things. The 2 drives would allow you to separate things, so the system could actually be performing 2 tasks at the same time. The setup would depend completely on your use, but as a start I would put the OS on one drive, and the swap file on the other. When you start factoring in applications and data files the configuration that works best for you will not be the same as what would work best for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got two Raptor 740GD-00NLR1

That's an interesting find...

The only WD drive which currently uses xxNLRx code is the new Raptor WD1500ADFD-00NLR0

So I think your drive is just based on this new construction but equipped with 8MB cache and TCQ.

If it was identical little brother with 16MB cache and NCQ then its name would be WD740ADFD-......

I still speculate your drives are very similar in performance to the new Raptors ;)

My new Raptor is a WD1500ADFS-00NLR0. I was told it's the new version with 3.0 transfer (instead of 1.5). Unfortunately, my computer can't make use of the faster rate. Still, it's faster than anything I've ever had! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
My new Raptor is a WD1500ADFS-00NLR0. I was told it's the new version with 3.0 transfer (instead of 1.5).

Yes, you're correct, ADFS stands for SATA300 (referring to WD's new model code system).

So this means WD has made a next new surprise now - Raptor with the second generation SATA interface. Now it's pretty foreseen that all of the new Raptor models will have this version very soon. Although nonsense for real use, I think it's general marketing and consumer views what are predicting the use of SATA300. The basic SATA simply does not sell good anymore, although it is still good in fact!

First of all--hello... new member on the forum. Second of all--now I'm really curious about this. I just got two of these drives for a RAID-0 setup, but decided after some late-coming research that I should probably return them and just get 1 of the new 74GB drives. Doesn't seem like the RAID-0 will really be worth it as a gamer in the end. However, the restocking fee is going to cost me 48 bones, the WD740ADFD drives are $40 more after considering the MIR for these drives currently on newegg and if in the end these drives wind up performing about as well as the new WD740ADFD drives, I should just keep them.

I'd really kick myself for RMA'ing these in and losing some money all for drives that in reality perform close to that of the WD740ADFD. Thoughts? I'm leaning towards canceling the RMA request and just keeping these--even if I just run them as two seperate drives. I got these from newegg just a couple days ago as well, BTW.

If the drives you have are just these WD740GD-00NLR1 then I would not RMA them. They seem to be pretty up-to-date generation ones, only with 8MB cache (but this isn't so big difference in real use). Also, I would just use these two drives separately, not in RAID0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's just a marketing checkbox, but it can be an important one. Anandtech's storage guides, for example, categorise drives into SATA 150 and SATA 300, meaning that the Raptors often end up getting much less attention than they deserve.

It's stupid that people will ignore a drive just because it's got less interface headroom (it's not as if you need to allow for a drive getting faster!), but it happens, all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just replaced 36GB Raptor with the exact same one 00NLR1 74GB. It's really sweet. First pass through hd-tach made it like this:

- 7.7ms/7.6ms random access

- 95.5mb max read

- 59.3mb min read

I think this is rather impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
- 95.5mb max read

I think this is rather impressive.

Yes it really is!

95.5 MB/s maximum, unbelievable!

But this is not the first feedback indicating that the new one-platter 74GB Raptor is even faster than its two-platter 150GB mother. It's still hard to explain why...

Maybe just NLR1 sub-version is faster than original NLR0 for Raptor150. Newer and even better firmware revision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That 95.5 MB/s is probably burst speed, where it's transferring from the cache. You need to be careful when setting up benchmarks to avoid that sort of thing, so that you're not benchmarking a cache.

I'd like to see the same tests done on a similar revision 150 GB Raptor before I conclude that the 74 GB version is faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for all it's worth HDTach gives very consistent results. I ran it again this morning and here's the pic.

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/5058/00nlr18cl.jpg

The results may not be as objective / closer to truth as storagereview's own suite of tests would produce probably but to me it gives a good picture for comparison with my previous 36GB raptor drive. Roughly 50% better when looking at those numbers. I mean system is noticably faster.

I am not sure what you meant by "cache bursts". Do you mean windows' cache?

Anyway, I bought the drive in a local computer store in Ottawa, CA. Manuf. date 26.Apr.2006, Malaysia.

Oh yeah, the rest of the system (if it matters) is: Athlon64 2.6Ghz, DFI NF-4 Ultra-D, 1GB PC3200, Maxtor 200GB....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well for all it's worth HDTach gives very consistent results. I ran it again this morning and here's the pic.

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/5058/00nlr18cl.jpg

The results may not be as objective / closer to truth as storagereview's own suite of tests would produce probably but to me it gives a good picture for comparison with my previous 36GB raptor drive. Roughly 50% better when looking at those numbers. I mean system is noticably faster.

I am not sure what you meant by "cache bursts". Do you mean windows' cache?

Anyway, I bought the drive in a local computer store in Ottawa, CA. Manuf. date 26.Apr.2006, Malaysia.

Oh yeah, the rest of the system (if it matters) is: Athlon64 2.6Ghz, DFI NF-4 Ultra-D, 1GB PC3200, Maxtor 200GB....

Your hd tach version 2.70 too old.Use hd tach version 3.01 test again,please. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I got two suggestions: disable cache and use hdtach 3.01. Will do but tomorrow night as I am away in Toronto for two days.

Does anyone have a suggestion how to disable windows's disk cache. I am sure there's a utility for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now