from 2.7 to 3.5%. Anyone care to comment? Are these tests variable enough that those numbers are comparible. Just seems a bit odd that you could have a 23% increase with some firmware changes. I'm sure on the whole its not much, but it's the first thing I noticed when looking at the new numbers.
I am not so sure HD tune is the "end all be all" of Hard drive benchmarks, especially when measuring CPU utilization. Look at all the benchmarks and real world time tests, then decide what you want to buy.
"Also gigabyte should not be capitalized -- this article is about WD, not Gigabyte ;)"
No, any proper noun gets capitalized, and so does any word that belongs to that noun after it.
"excuse but you shouldn't be recommending a drive that only increased capacity and reduced size. At the least, they could have made our $300 receive a 32MB cache."
"Did you even read the preview? It was completely rebuilt. RTFM or GTFO. Go spend your money on marketing hype where numbers like cache size dominate, I guess."
You're exactly right. Cache size means squat, just like the original raptor only had 150gb/s Sata and outperformed all the Sata II drives. The person begging for 32mb's of cache hasn't a clue what they're talking about.
"I always thought that the performance end of the market was were the money was at."
"Where the money is" depends more on which market you're focused on. Performance drives are only one of many markets. Some purchasers don't care about performance, therefore your statement is simply void. Performance is where the money is in the performance market.
"This hard drive is still the bottleneck of the pc. It would be a complete waste to spend any coin on this drive. Every other part of the computer is evolving and hard drives are moving along at a snails pace. It's pretty pathetic."
If the hard-drive is the bottleneck, then wouldn't make the most sense to spend your money there? Why would upgrade your fastest component?
"The MB/S stats look impressive, but the real world performance vs the 640mb drive are barely noticeable in most cases. "
Agreed.
"it appears this is quietest drive available. That last stat is, IMO, probably the biggest gain for the Raptors. Top performance generally means high heat, noise and power consumption."
ALL of the reasons listed in the article are reasons that this drive should be CONSIDERED, unless you're willing to wait and see how SSD's pan out. This drive will go the way of the dodo soon, just as the original raptor is now becoming extinct. It's biggest drawbacks are as mentioned though, comparable drives and high cost per GB.
"No, any proper noun gets capitalized, and so does any word that belongs to that noun after it. "
Sorry but I am afraid you are not correct, read the context in which the comment was made again. The word 'gigabyte' was used as a unit of measurement and is not a proper noun so is not capitalised. 'Gigabyte' when used as the name of the hardware manufacturing company is a proper noun and is capitalised.
The MB/S stats look impressive, but the real world performance vs the 640mb drive are barely noticeable in most cases.
The biggest difference, as I recall, is with the Nero's recoding of a 7-8GB movie. And that difference was something like 5 or 6 seconds. Yes it's faster, but it's pretty minuscule in these comparisons.
Storagereview.com's review made it look more impressive, but I'm now guessing they didn't give real world results based on time.
I'm not really the target market for this drive, but if the performance gains were more significant (and the price dropped around 20%), I'd consider it, since it appears this is quietest drive available. That last stat is, IMO, probably the biggest gain for the Raptors. Top performance generally means high heat, noise and power consumption.
So kudos to WD for managing make a drive that has it all (except for super large storage capacity).
This hard drive is still the bottleneck of the pc. It would be a complete waste to spend any coin on this drive. Every other part of the computer is evolving and hard drives are moving along at a snails pace. It's pretty pathetic.
Current hard drives are like AGP. You can make them a little faster but in the end they're still the bottleneck and just beating a dead horse. Time to move on to new technology.
Isn't it sad that hard drives still cant exceed the bandwidth of legacy SATA?
The new new raptor is a 2.5" drive compared to 3.5" inches in the previous models. Also there are only 2 platters in this drive (not sure how many in the previous model). So maybe it is huge leaps and bounds but there is a good reason for it.
I am waiting for the single platter 150GB version for my next boot drive.
I have a couple of the older 150G Raptors in a RAID 0 on a AMCC 9650SE card and the just benchmarked with HD Tune at an average transfer rate of 119.8 MB/sec and an access time of 8.0 ms
Thanks for the update, I am watching this drive carefully. As for the others who replied, this drive is about speed and performance - not capacity. It's going to be my next system drive, if all turns out well in the full review.
I find it interesting that the other drive makers are happy to leave WD to this market - why no response from them? I always thought that the performance end of the market was were the money was at.
I wonder if anyone is going to do a review with hardware based non onboard raid. I'd like to see performance numbers with 3 of these badboys in a raid 0.
excuse but you shouldn't be recommending a drive that only increased capacity and reduced size. At the least, they could have made our $300 receive a 32MB cache.
Did you even read the preview? It was completely rebuilt. RTFM or GTFO. Go spend your money on marketing hype where numbers like cache size dominate, I guess.
What's with the "Jared" subject? LOL I have nothing to do with this article. :p And there are two R's. Unless you're talking about the subway guy? Or the jewelry store? "He went to Jared!"
Can you stuff one of these in a PS3 to see what the performance gains are?
With more and more PS3 games having installs, and more people using them as media boxes, It seems like this might be a possible modification for those that want the bleeding edge on everything they do.
Either "fare well against" or "compare favorably to". "Fair favorably to" = fail. Also gigabyte should not be capitalized -- this article is about WD, not Gigabyte ;)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
28 Comments
Back to Article
7Enigma - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
from 2.7 to 3.5%. Anyone care to comment? Are these tests variable enough that those numbers are comparible. Just seems a bit odd that you could have a 23% increase with some firmware changes. I'm sure on the whole its not much, but it's the first thing I noticed when looking at the new numbers.retrospooty - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
"from 2.7 to 3.5%. Anyone care to comment?"I am not so sure HD tune is the "end all be all" of Hard drive benchmarks, especially when measuring CPU utilization. Look at all the benchmarks and real world time tests, then decide what you want to buy.
JonnyDough - Sunday, May 4, 2008 - link
"Also gigabyte should not be capitalized -- this article is about WD, not Gigabyte ;)"No, any proper noun gets capitalized, and so does any word that belongs to that noun after it.
"excuse but you shouldn't be recommending a drive that only increased capacity and reduced size. At the least, they could have made our $300 receive a 32MB cache."
"Did you even read the preview? It was completely rebuilt. RTFM or GTFO. Go spend your money on marketing hype where numbers like cache size dominate, I guess."
You're exactly right. Cache size means squat, just like the original raptor only had 150gb/s Sata and outperformed all the Sata II drives. The person begging for 32mb's of cache hasn't a clue what they're talking about.
"I always thought that the performance end of the market was were the money was at."
"Where the money is" depends more on which market you're focused on. Performance drives are only one of many markets. Some purchasers don't care about performance, therefore your statement is simply void. Performance is where the money is in the performance market.
"This hard drive is still the bottleneck of the pc. It would be a complete waste to spend any coin on this drive. Every other part of the computer is evolving and hard drives are moving along at a snails pace. It's pretty pathetic."
If the hard-drive is the bottleneck, then wouldn't make the most sense to spend your money there? Why would upgrade your fastest component?
"The MB/S stats look impressive, but the real world performance vs the 640mb drive are barely noticeable in most cases. "
Agreed.
"it appears this is quietest drive available. That last stat is, IMO, probably the biggest gain for the Raptors. Top performance generally means high heat, noise and power consumption."
ALL of the reasons listed in the article are reasons that this drive should be CONSIDERED, unless you're willing to wait and see how SSD's pan out. This drive will go the way of the dodo soon, just as the original raptor is now becoming extinct. It's biggest drawbacks are as mentioned though, comparable drives and high cost per GB.
MikosNZ - Tuesday, May 6, 2008 - link
"No, any proper noun gets capitalized, and so does any word that belongs to that noun after it. "Sorry but I am afraid you are not correct, read the context in which the comment was made again. The word 'gigabyte' was used as a unit of measurement and is not a proper noun so is not capitalised. 'Gigabyte' when used as the name of the hardware manufacturing company is a proper noun and is capitalised.
JonnyDough - Wednesday, May 7, 2008 - link
"Also gigabyte should not be capitalized -- this article is about WD, not Gigabyte ;)"My response was in response to THAT. I do believe that what I said still stands. Thanks though.
nilepez - Sunday, May 4, 2008 - link
The MB/S stats look impressive, but the real world performance vs the 640mb drive are barely noticeable in most cases.The biggest difference, as I recall, is with the Nero's recoding of a 7-8GB movie. And that difference was something like 5 or 6 seconds. Yes it's faster, but it's pretty minuscule in these comparisons.
Storagereview.com's review made it look more impressive, but I'm now guessing they didn't give real world results based on time.
I'm not really the target market for this drive, but if the performance gains were more significant (and the price dropped around 20%), I'd consider it, since it appears this is quietest drive available. That last stat is, IMO, probably the biggest gain for the Raptors. Top performance generally means high heat, noise and power consumption.
So kudos to WD for managing make a drive that has it all (except for super large storage capacity).
narzy - Sunday, May 4, 2008 - link
Can you put these in a raid 0+1 array in a Mac Pro and post benchmark numbers?Rob94hawk - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link
This hard drive is still the bottleneck of the pc. It would be a complete waste to spend any coin on this drive. Every other part of the computer is evolving and hard drives are moving along at a snails pace. It's pretty pathetic.pygo - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
If that is the case, then wouldn't speeding up the slowest component in a system be a wise decision?Rob94hawk - Wednesday, May 7, 2008 - link
Current hard drives are like AGP. You can make them a little faster but in the end they're still the bottleneck and just beating a dead horse. Time to move on to new technology.Isn't it sad that hard drives still cant exceed the bandwidth of legacy SATA?
SignalPST - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link
Hi Gary,Can you verify the acoustic results of the new Raptor again? I was looking at them(http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=32...">http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=32... and comparing it to the 1TB Caviar GP(http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=31...">http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=31... and both are alarmingly similar. I'm hopping either some mistake was made or that WD must have made such huge leaps and bounds to quite the VelociRaptor. AFAIK, the Caviar GP is among the most quiet consumer HDDs out, and the Raptors; traditionally, are quite the contrast.
SignalPST
GTVic - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link
The new new raptor is a 2.5" drive compared to 3.5" inches in the previous models. Also there are only 2 platters in this drive (not sure how many in the previous model). So maybe it is huge leaps and bounds but there is a good reason for it.I am waiting for the single platter 150GB version for my next boot drive.
biostud - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link
....for only ~$30/GBhttp://www.fusionio.com/press3.html">http://www.fusionio.com/press3.html
javamann - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link
I have a couple of the older 150G Raptors in a RAID 0 on a AMCC 9650SE card and the just benchmarked with HD Tune at an average transfer rate of 119.8 MB/sec and an access time of 8.0 msMelski - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
Thanks for the update, I am watching this drive carefully. As for the others who replied, this drive is about speed and performance - not capacity. It's going to be my next system drive, if all turns out well in the full review.I find it interesting that the other drive makers are happy to leave WD to this market - why no response from them? I always thought that the performance end of the market was were the money was at.
Zoomer - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link
It is - but they would rather sell $1000 SAS or iSCSI drives.Zefram0911 - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
I wonder if anyone is going to do a review with hardware based non onboard raid. I'd like to see performance numbers with 3 of these badboys in a raid 0.GhandiInstinct - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
excuse but you shouldn't be recommending a drive that only increased capacity and reduced size. At the least, they could have made our $300 receive a 32MB cache.Bremen7000 - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
Did you even read the preview? It was completely rebuilt. RTFM or GTFO. Go spend your money on marketing hype where numbers like cache size dominate, I guess.JarredWalton - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
What's with the "Jared" subject? LOL I have nothing to do with this article. :p And there are two R's. Unless you're talking about the subway guy? Or the jewelry store? "He went to Jared!"XT6Wagon - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
Can you stuff one of these in a PS3 to see what the performance gains are?With more and more PS3 games having installs, and more people using them as media boxes, It seems like this might be a possible modification for those that want the bleeding edge on everything they do.
dr4gon - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
When is the WD64000AAKS and the Samsung 750GB reviews going to be up? It was promised in a "week" a month ago.comc49 - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link
you mean samsung 640gb? 750gb is oldSlash3 - Wednesday, May 7, 2008 - link
The F1 750GB might be "old" but it still compares very favorably vs the recent 640GB WD.MDme - Friday, May 2, 2008 - link
While the 300GB capacity and $1 per Gigabyte cost do not fair favorably to the latest 640GB to 1TB drives....it should be "fare" right?
magreen - Sunday, May 4, 2008 - link
Either "fare well against" or "compare favorably to". "Fair favorably to" = fail. Also gigabyte should not be capitalized -- this article is about WD, not Gigabyte ;)legoman666 - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link
noDukeN - Saturday, May 3, 2008 - link
Actually, it should be.