Davin

Western Digital Raptor WD360GD

Recommended Posts

I thought i was THE ONLY 1 that had heard about the "no vibes III"... i want to get that on my next pc... but i have a few questions about that though: 1) Is it available ONLY in the uk?!?! i'd really like to get it from USA (preferably newegg  :D ), but have found it ONLY on 1 website. 2) Duz it really reduce noise? and if so, significantly or not?!?! 3) Is it worth the money?!?!? 4) Seeing as you have one, can they be home made?!?!

I have one - I got it from lownoisepc.com (Australia) and yes some people definately do import these from Germany.

It works well and it's about 50$ AUD or so......

You CAN make your own, I saw an article about it - was quite impressive really - check out silentpcreview.com

- Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But surely it might help a little bit IF it had it right? :)

If that is the case - could it be done via firmware and is it truely SATA compliant WITHOUT it since it's an SATA feature?

I'm just being curious - any idea's?

My understanding is SATA supports TCQ, but I'm not sure if it's required on a drive to be called SATA. I mean, technically ATA100 can support 48 bit LBA, but I don't think it's required for you to call it an ATA100 drive.

Hey eugene, are you gonna sit their and tell me that I am wrong. You'd better rethink that answer buddy! All I am saying is, how is it that their drives perform better than the rest when they are mechanically inferior to IBM for example. Mechanics make the drive go faster not software / firmware. The real thing here is that the drives firmware (on wd drives) always reports better than average results. This is DONE to produce bragging rights. I truely believe that you ALWAYS to fail to mention this LITTLE detail. Why is that? If you think I am Wrong, please give me a TECHNICAL answer as to why WD always just inches by the competition without any real reason. 

If I understand your statement correctly, you're saying that WD somehow gets the drives to report misleading results through the cable, so it "appears" to be doing better than it is. In other words, as if it had a busted speedometer that needed calibration. I have no idea how they'd do this. I mean, it'd be a huge amount of effort to make your drive "lie," don't you think?

Mechanics and firmware have to go together to make a drive fast. A huge engine in a car that isn't tuned properly will have horrendous mileage and poor power production. Good mechanics are like that engine. Firmware is the tuning that takes advantage of that big engine and give you that great car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't worry guys, mann is the same moron who said that a raid 5 array is 75% efficient in storing data, when the person was talking about a 3 hard drive array. This is also the same person who recommends hitachi.

how on earth does he know that hitachi mechanics are superior to everyone else's? last time I checked hitachi drives are really reliable. my shop only sold one batch of 20 180gxp's, more than half have come back (not forgetting the entire 75gxp, 60gxp, 120gxp debarcle).

I vote we just ignore his comments entirely. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that we are talking about an 10kRPM _IDE_ drive here. People keep comparing the drive to 15kRPM _SCSI_ drives. In history IDE drives have always been faster in single-user environments, just look at any benchmarks in SR and you'll se many 7200RPM drives beat 10kRPM SCSI drives. Some of the problem is just the overhead of SCSI compared to the simpler IDE (similar to for example RISC and CISC processors, where the much simpler RISC processors were faster with the same clock speed). Additionally it comes mainly to the firmware, in which IDE is once again optimized for single-user scenarios and SCSI for multi-user and heavy random access. My very accurate "methinks benchmark" based on "feel" would estimate that IDE drives are comparable to a speed grade faster SCSI drive in single user scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let us not forget that we are talking about an 10kRPM _IDE_ drive here. People keep comparing the drive to 15kRPM _SCSI_ drives. In history IDE drives have always been faster in single-user environments, just look at any benchmarks in SR and you'll se many 7200RPM drives beat 10kRPM SCSI drives. Some of the problem is just the overhead of SCSI compared to the simpler IDE (similar to for example RISC and CISC processors, where the much simpler RISC processors were faster with the same clock speed). Additionally it comes mainly to the firmware, in which IDE is once again optimized for single-user scenarios and SCSI for multi-user and heavy random access. My very accurate "methinks benchmark" based on "feel" would estimate that IDE drives are comparable to a speed grade faster SCSI drive in single user scenarios.

However, Raptor beats 15K SCSI drives in such benchmarks as High-End and Bootup, while staying behind in Office and Gaming. How come?

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, Raptor beats 15K SCSI drives in such benchmarks as High-End and Bootup, while staying behind in Office and Gaming. How come?

This is what I was wondering. Those two benchmarks are STR dependant, which is something that the Raptor trails compared to 15k.3 and Atlas 15k.

If you do a head-to-head comparison of the Raptor with both controllers, the 15k.3 and Atlas 15k, and an IDE drive such as the WD2000JB, you'll notice the particular Winbench tests that the Raptor beats the 15k drives in are the high STR benches also. And, the 2000JB IDE drive also does well here.

What this makes me wonder is how write-intensive these particular tests are, and could the SCSI drives be affected by the 'XP SCSI bug'? While I have respect for Eugene's opinion that this is a non-issue when it comes to real world performance (and therefore the SR Drivemarks which are as close to real world a benchmark gets) I'm curious to see if using something such as Cas' xpcachefilter makes any/much difference to the test results of the SCSI drives. Any chance of a quick test to prove/disprove this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm interested to hear if this drive actually feels as fast in use as it tests in benchmarks.  From my own personal experience, the WD JB drives don't feel any faster than the corresponding BB drives yet benchmarks show it consistenty winning by 20% or more.  To me the DM+ 9 8MB drives felt faster than the current JB drives, which is why I returned a JB drive and kept the Maxtor, yet benchmarks suggest otherwise.  It also appears that while the BB line is usually even or slower than the other companies' 2MB lines, the JB line seems to win pretty decisively in the workstation BM's vs the 8MB drives of the competition.  I'm not going to accuse WD of flubbing benchmarks as I don't really see how they would, but I have felt for a while that the benchmarks these drives post don't represent how they really perform or how fast they feel.  So I'm interested to hear if the Raptor feels as fast as it is benchmarking compared to the competition.

Well I can maybe answer this one, having worked for WD tech support until Feb of this year (laid off...jobs all moved to canada...bleah). However, IANAE (I Am Not An Engineer) so I can only tell you from a results perspective.

Basically the area the cache is going to benefit you the most is when you're doing large sequential reads/writes. This is why drives like the WD1200JB and WD2000JB are used by the 20-pack in video editing. What we always told ppl who called tech support with this question is that unless you're pushing the drive EXTREMELY hard and especially with sequential access, you're not going to notice the difference between the BB and JB series. I'd guess you're probably doing gaming and/or office, etc. tasks with it which will not really give you the benifit of the added cache on the drive. And we did get people calling who did video editing quite often who claimed their processing time was significantly diminished by loading up their editing boxes with the JB drives. (Incidentally, if you put 9 WD2000JB drives in a single case, your power supply better have BALLS or a good life insurance plan..)

Anyway sorry this is a bit disorganized and scattered, it's 2:15 AM and my mind's shot all to hell...hope this makes at least a little sense when I undoubtedly read it tomorrow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few days ago i've heard about it, while I was searching for info's on WD80JB. I sow so many reviews about HDD from al the companies. And all say that the WD's Raptor Rock's! What I found incredible is that then I couldn't find the price of this beauty. And since 2 days ago the Raptor is here in Constanta, Romania - I can buy it for 192,90$(225$ with 19%TAX). It's more expensive than 166$ but if I count the shipping it's not so much. What it's incredible is that here i cannot buy an AMD Athlon Xp with more than 2200+ or an WD HDD bigger than 80Gb because there are not on the market.

____________________________________________________________

I own an Gigabyte 7VRX(KT333) and 2 HDD that under winXP gave this scores with HD Tach (repeated tests):

Maxtor 40gb 7200 2M ATA 133 11.8ms#42342kps max#21877kps min#34981kps average#114,7mbps burst#8,7% Cpu

WD 40gb 7200 2M ATA 100 13.6ms#49605kps max#20633kps min#41718kps average# 86.7mbps burst#9.3% Cpu

Note that you will not see these if you still have bios version 5. Upgrade to 8b. And under WIN98 these will be a lot higher...

so the mainboard, bios and drivers have a great impact on HDD performance not?

_________________________________________________________

From my own experience I sow that using the WD HDD boosted my performance quite well( compared to the maxtor).The winXP loading takes less, also programs like Adobe Photoshop, Ulead Media and the Office Suite. And the Unreal II game also...I am thinking to buy the Raptor - if it's what they all say. Thank's god I can go to the shop to see it actually working.

__________________________________________________________

About the cache: Theoretically the transfer speed of files that hit the cache limit should be around the burst speed, some sad. This I found hard to believe, because on my 2Mb cache HDD I do not see an improvement. I want to see the Raptor with it's 8mb playing with some large mp3s...or with the win xp cd backup...or with a good contability/finance program(you know, that small 10-20 megs program with so many files that takes to copy almost the same as a divx movie :lol:

Why the HDD it's so slow under DOS mode? If needed to install OS will take forever without the SMARTDRIVE(witch I think was the best HDD tweak utility created for DOS). Why I've mentioned DOS :?:

Because all the tests are made under Win XP - that has so many bugs with the HD controlers. If ATA133 and RAID systems does not get along very well with XP, what can we expect from SATA :?: The real HDD performance it's still best viewed on WIN98SE.

__________________________________________________________

Woaw i'm crazy writing so much and thinking that someone will read it

and guide me to buy or not the Raptor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a happy user of two 1200JBs and a 1800BB, I have been pretty lacadaisical about the arrival of SATA drives - what I have works pretty damned well for now. And the pre-release Raptors's benchmarks certainly didn't blow my doors off, nor the doors of my 1200JBs.

BUT: having seen the new production Raptor benchmarks, all I can say is "BRING IT ON! Come to Daddy!! Where have you been all my life, beautiful?!?! Hubba Hubba Hubba!!"

On A Serious Note: High-end, sophisticated users have mixed SCSI and IDE to get fast boot and swap times on one SCSI drive, a use IDE drives for economical bulk storage. Now, we can begin to make that same split using SATA drives (or SATA/ATA with adaptors), so it will become MUCH more economical for users to performance tune like this. So we can expect more middle range users, and possibly pre-configured systems, to adopt a split performance drive/bulk drive setup...this is a great example of trickle down technology...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On A Serious Note: High-end, sophisticated users have mixed SCSI and IDE to get fast boot and swap times on one SCSI drive, a use IDE drives for economical bulk storage.  Now, we can begin to make that same split using SATA drives (or SATA/ATA with adaptors), so it will become MUCH more economical for users to performance tune like this.  So we can expect more middle range users, and possibly pre-configured systems, to adopt a split performance drive/bulk drive setup...this is a great example of trickle down technology...

Future Shock

Yeah totally man I was thinking 2 raptors in a stripped raid array coupled with a 200gb diamondmax 9 SATA would be kick ASS - purely a speed monster - it'd have to do at least 60mb a second sustained at most times!

man that'd be cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is we have to pay VAT (19% in the Netherlands, 16% in Germany, I don't know about the other countries). The price excluding VAT (~150 euros) is not so bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is we have to pay VAT (19% in the Netherlands, 16% in Germany, I don't know about the other countries). The price excluding VAT (~150 euros) is not so bad.

mmmmmmmmm 150 euro's.......... i guess that's not TOO bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but in terms of performance, this drive is still way behind SCSI. As your review notes, it has the performance of 7200 RPM SCSI which is effectively a dead market (and has been for about a year and a half - ever since 15k RPM SCSI came out). I bought one of the 2nd generation 15k Cheetahs over a year ago, and it's still quite a bit faster than any of the IDE drives.

All of this is kind of a mute point. Until PCI-X becomes common on desktops current SCSI and even RAID IDE drives can saturate the bus. This is a major killer to the hard disk industry right now, there just isnt a whole lot more that can be done for mainstream hard disk performance until the PCI bus is phased out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
Sorry but in terms of performance, this drive is still way behind SCSI.  As your review notes, it has the performance of 7200 RPM SCSI which is effectively a dead market (and has been for about a year and a half - ever since 15k RPM SCSI came out).     I bought one of the 2nd generation 15k Cheetahs over a year ago, and it's still quite a bit faster than any of the IDE drives.

You note only half the story. The drive provides 7200 RPM SCSI performance for server applications. For desktop applications, it is at least as fast as all drives excepting only 3rd-generation 15k units.

All of this is kind of a mute point.  Until PCI-X becomes common on desktops current SCSI and even RAID IDE drives can saturate the bus.  This is a major killer to the hard disk industry right now, there just isnt a whole lot more that can be done for mainstream hard disk performance until the PCI bus is phased out.

IDE RAID may be able to saturate PCI right now... a single SCSI drive, however, does not. As a result, these issues are hardly moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of this is kind of a mute point.  Until PCI-X becomes common on desktops current SCSI and even RAID IDE drives can saturate the bus.  This is a major killer to the hard disk industry right now, there just isnt a whole lot more that can be done for mainstream hard disk performance until the PCI bus is phased out.

First, that would be a "moot" point.

Second, it isn't because bus bandwidth is not at all a bottleneck. Perhaps it is for the folks with Best Buy computers, but the primary market for high-performance SCSI has been running 64/66 or better for three or four years now.

Mine are FC-ALs running in storage arrays with eight paths to each host via four physically separate FC-AL controllers per host. The physical STRs remain the biggest bottleneck by a pretty wide margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote "The Raptor's single-platter configuration also yields a relatively low operating drive temperature. Our measurements reached 20.8 degrees Celsius above ambient room temperature- on the high side for an ATA drive but well below the typical SCSI unit."

The specs on the Raptor that I got off WD's website state the operating temp for the Raptor is 5-55 Celcius (41-131 F). Now - the quote states the drive reached 20.8 C above ambient - thats almost 70 F above room temperature. Now everthing is relevant - but what was the "ambient" temperature in the test? even if it was 65F (which is not realistic for an office or inside a server case, that would put the drive above operating specs (put it at 135F ).

What am I missing here?

Mr M Mills@onebbox.com

(MrMMills@onebox.com)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now - the quote states the drive reached 20.8 C above ambient - thats almost 70 F above room temperature.

The review is talking about temperature differences, not absolute temperatures. Because there are 1.8 Farenheit degrees per Centigrade degree, a differential of 20.8C equals a differential of 37.4F, not 70F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received my two Raptors in the mail today...if you're planning on picking them up from Atacom you should know that they're OEM and not retail, which they don't list. Gotta go look for a pair of SATA cables now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Finland I see an over 50% premium for the Raptor when compared to a similar-sized JB-series disk. The lowest price I could find for the Raptor is EUR 185 (includes 22% VAT) and a WD 400JB is about EUR 110. I'd still buy a Raptor for boot-up and apps-disk and leave my 800JB for storage, if I wouldn't have just bought a Maxtor Diamondmax +9 /w 8MB cache. 5 years warranty is an excellent feature.

SR's reported price at Hypermicro -155USD - seems very reasonable for such a disk. Of course for servers the performance when compared with SCSI disks is not very respectable, but still better than 7200RPM ATA disks.

Now WD should release a higher-capacity disk (72/144GB) to make the Raptor even more successful, so I could replace my 80GB JB-series with a 72GB Raptor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If running the benchmarks with unpatched XP, then surely the performance of the SCSI drives will be affected? After all, it clearly affects copy times with Windows Explorer. There was a tremendous difference in "snappiness" when I moved from XP Pro to 2003 Server, with advanced performance ticked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If running the benchmarks with unpatched XP, then surely the performance of the SCSI drives will be affected? After all, it clearly affects copy times with Windows Explorer. There was a tremendous difference in "snappiness" when I moved from XP Pro to 2003 Server, with advanced performance ticked.

I made the same point in another thread at one stage but received no response. It depends if the applications used the SR Drivemarks try to bypass the write cache. While we can clearly observe the time it takes to copy files is impacted, I'd like to know if DriveMarks are impacted. If it is, this gives the Raptor an unfair advantage against the SCSI drives it is competing against for high-end desktop performance. All it would take a running the SR tests against one of the current gen. 15k drives. Eugene?

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