PDA

View Full Version : Raptors 2x74GB or 1x150GB


Pages : [1] 2

crainger
07-30-06, 08:01 PM
OK. I'm running low on disk space and I want to turn my 250gb into a storage drive and purchase a Raptor for a OS/Game drive.

I have two choices I can purchase 2x74GB Raptors for $269.50 each ($539 total) and run them in RAID 0

or

I can purchase one 150gb Raptor for $440 ($517 with window)

Having never ran a RAID 0 config, whould the 2 smaller drives be worth it over the single large drive? Most of use this PC will see is gaming. The case is a CoolerMaster Stacker 830 so HDD temps are not a concern, Current drives max temp is around 30C. As this is purely a gaming rig, stability is desirable, but I wont loose sleep should I lose data due to RAID crash (I also have a 500gb external drive for backups). I'm aiming for speed and fast load times.

Rytr
07-30-06, 08:30 PM
I have used my 74GB Raptors in Raid 0 which proved to be very fast. However, I did not really notice much over a single Raptor in a gaming rig so I now use one Raptor each in systems I use for gaming (one Intel and one AMD) backed by an assortment of SATA drives for storage.
I have not tried the 150GB Raptor.

The Bigman
07-30-06, 10:00 PM
I got 2 74gb raptors on drive c for system and i use 2 200 gig drivers for D and E i use one 400 GB drive.

No you will not see any performance with the 150.

zan780
07-30-06, 10:13 PM
The 150GB raptor is quite a bit faster than the 74GB version. Check out the benchmarks on www.storagereview.com.

RAID-0 does not improve desktop performance at all except in benchmarks or situations where you need very high sequential transfer rates (copying large files). The most performance gain you will see with RAID-0 is in bootup (your computer will boot about twice as fast) but games will load the same, and in some cases actually slower because of the added overhead of having to synchronize both drives. In addition, it will double the chance that you will lose your data. Plus, those cheapo RAID controllers on motherboards tend to screw up randomly and corrupt the array.

crainger
07-30-06, 10:29 PM
Well the $440 150gb Raptor looks like the winner. I don't care about boot times. My PC rarely crashes and if i do turn it off it is Suspended to RAM (S3) so "boot up" is only a few split seconds.

Plus I wont have to worry about RAID.

jAkUp
07-30-06, 10:48 PM
I would go with the 150GB, less CPU overhead also.

crainger
07-30-06, 11:05 PM
Cool, now the difference between the Raptor X and the regular Raptor 150 is just the window correct? I thought I was all set until I saw the "X". Now I'm unsure. Surely that window isn't the only reason for the $77 difference?

jAkUp
07-30-06, 11:10 PM
Thats it. The Window.

crainger
07-31-06, 12:20 AM
Wow. Not sure of the US prices, but $77AUD for just a window is hard to justify. Then again, I've never seen the moving internals of a working drive. So I guess is a fair engineering feat. I think with my case (Stacker 830), I'll just get the regular version.

DataMatrix
07-31-06, 03:13 AM
2 x 74GB will be faster to read/write but will increase CPU overhead like jAkUp said.

CaptNKILL
07-31-06, 03:19 AM
Wow. Not sure of the US prices, but $77AUD for just a window is hard to justify. Then again, I've never seen the moving internals of a working drive. So I guess is a fair engineering feat. I think with my case (Stacker 830), I'll just get the regular version.
There isnt really much to see, and unless your drive is mounted sideways or not mounted at all, you'll never see it (I think jAkUp custom rigged his case so that it was visible).

Plus, it doesnt seem like plastic is something you want to stick on a hard drive cover. Especially a high RPM drive like that... it has to hurt the heat dissipation.

DataMatrix
07-31-06, 08:43 AM
Thats why the hard-drive is shaped with heatsinks all around it.

Ristogod
08-01-06, 10:41 PM
I use a single 150GB Raptor and it was a big improvement over the previous 7200.9 drive I was using before it.

In my opinion the benefits of RAID don't outweigh the risks and disadvantages, so I prefer not to use it. Of course thats just my opinion.

superklye
08-01-06, 10:43 PM
I was going to ask why the prices were so ridiculously high, and then I remembered you're in Oz. :(

Bman212121
08-03-06, 02:15 PM
RAID all the way IMO. It has proven to me to be faster the whole way around.

I did some digging and found the single best bench test for raptors that I've seen. It shows both the 74GB raptor and 150GB raptor in 1 - 4 drive configurations. It shows that the transfers, and I/O goes up significantly, with relitively no change to seek times. Yes, the cpu usage would go up some when using the onboard RAID, but it's worth it IMO. Either way, if you use an add-in card, like these tests are using, then no CPU power is used. My 3 x 120 GB doesn't use any CPU time since it's on an add-in card.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=raptor150raid&page=5

Also note the FileWrite tests. I just wish they showed read tests as well, as I'm sure the Raid would win there also.

crainger
08-03-06, 05:51 PM
I was going to ask why the prices were so ridiculously high, and then I remembered you're in Oz. :(

Yeah. We suck for most hardware, but its my hobby and I just accept it. I could get things alot cheaper if I imported, but I think its too risky. We are lucky for Zalman products though.

crainger
08-03-06, 05:55 PM
RAID all the way IMO. It has proven to me to be faster the whole way around.

I did some digging and found the single best bench test for raptors that I've seen. It shows both the 74GB raptor and 150GB raptor in 1 - 4 drive configurations. It shows that the transfers, and I/O goes up significantly, with relitively no change to seek times. Yes, the cpu usage would go up some when using the onboard RAID, but it's worth it IMO. Either way, if you use an add-in card, like these tests are using, then no CPU power is used. My 3 x 120 GB doesn't use any CPU time since it's on an add-in card.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=raptor150raid&page=5

Also note the FileWrite tests. I just wish they showed read tests as well, as I'm sure the Raid would win there also.

Thanks for the link, but I'm going for the single drive. Less fuss, plus there is little to no difference in load times. Now I have a lappy for work and boring stuff, my desktop is purely for games. So I doubt I'd be moving any giant files around. Oh and its cheaper too.

ViN86
08-03-06, 08:17 PM
id go for the single drive. RAID has greater chance of failure (well striping does at least).

LBJM
08-03-06, 08:41 PM
I would go with 2x 74GB in a raid 0 array it's faster than the single 150GB raptor. you get about as much space +-1GB and the new versions of the 74GB raptor have 16MB cache and newegg.com has them.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136033

Bman212121
08-04-06, 10:35 AM
@crainger

I would agree that there is less fuss, and if you wanted to dual boot Linux, it's not going to be on a raid. AFAIK games feel like they load faster on RAID, because they are moving huge amount of data. All of the games I have now are at least 3GB in size, and load well over 600MB into ram. Either way, you’re not going to be at a big loss since it will still be faster than a normal drive.

id go for the single drive. RAID has greater chance of failure (well striping does at least).
How do you figure? If you lose a single drive, the data is all gone, if you lose a single drive in RAID 0, all the data is gone. Either way, you should have another backup of the stuff that is actually important.

Just as another point since I always seem to have to rebute it as well. If you were to just leave the 2 drives separate, and have each having its own partition and separate data, it is not any better than RAID 0 either because it's only one copy. If one drive fails, you still lost data. So what if it's only half of the total stuff that you have? Unless you backed it up, it's gone.

LBJM
08-06-06, 05:59 AM
@crainger

I would agree that there is less fuss, and if you wanted to dual boot Linux, it's not going to be on a raid.


how do you figure? linux works better with raid than windows does.

crainger
08-06-06, 06:37 PM
@crainger

I would agree that there is less fuss, and if you wanted to dual boot Linux, it's not going to be on a raid. AFAIK games feel like they load faster on RAID, because they are moving huge amount of data. All of the games I have now are at least 3GB in size, and load well over 600MB into ram. Either way, you’re not going to be at a big loss since it will still be faster than a normal drive.

You have a point about the game shifting large amounts of data, but there is also another advantage of getting the 150 single drive. I can always add another later...

Bman212121
08-07-06, 07:59 AM
how do you figure? linux works better with raid than windows does.

I've never seen that. Maybe if your using the built-in software RAID (In the OS I mean), but if you want to use the hardware RAID then you need drivers, and that's where your SOL.

@crangier: Yup, that's definitely true. You also do save space and a little heat, plus there are less cables. I have a hard time routing cables in my pc because I have 4 hard drives, so it would be nice to have just 1, but I do like the extra speed over 1 drive.

Bearclaw
08-07-06, 03:26 PM
id go for the single drive. RAID has greater chance of failure (well striping does at least).

Same thoughts here, go for the single bigger drive.

crainger
08-07-06, 08:37 PM
I've never seen that. Maybe if your using the built-in software RAID (In the OS I mean), but if you want to use the hardware RAID then you need drivers, and that's where your SOL.

@crangier: Yup, that's definitely true. You also do save space and a little heat, plus there are less cables. I have a hard time routing cables in my pc because I have 4 hard drives, so it would be nice to have just 1, but I do like the extra speed over 1 drive.

As I have a CM 830 stacker heat and cables do not pose much of an issue ;)

Sound however might be a problem, though I have not heard complaints about the Raptors being overly noisy.