| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 82057 | 2007-08-14 22:17:00 | 10,000 rpm drives - anybody got one? Opinions? | Deane F (8204) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 581091 | 2007-08-14 22:17:00 | I'm looking at upgrading later on this year. HDD speed is not too much of an issue for me - but it is an issue. I'll be spending the cash on a 8800GTX, a Core Duo 6750 and some dual channel RAM - so it may be silly to hold it all up with a relatively slow HDD. If anybody has a 10,000 rpm drive, I'd like to hear their opinions on the differences it made to their system. Given the price, and the smallish capacity, I wonder if they're worth it - compared to a much bigger 7200 rpm 16MB cache drive for much less cash? I like STALKER, but the way the game loads up areas on the fly causes stuttering on my machine (Pentium dual core 2.8GHz/2GB RAM/7900GT). I suspect that game-worlds will increasingly work like this - loading up areas to RAM as you go through the game because textures files etc are getting huge. And I don't want to set up a striped array. It doubles the failure risk. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 581092 | 2007-08-14 22:53:00 | in my opinion they are to expensive for what you get in extra performance.but if money isnt an issue why not get the best.warning raptors are noisey.ure games will load alot faster though :) | ferrite (4221) | ||
| 581093 | 2007-08-14 23:55:00 | Yep, expensive for a '25%' speed increase and relatively small size. You would probably just be better off with a SATA2 7,200rpm drive with NCQ (native command queing). Or you could wait until the flash drive HDs start appearing on the market... no noisey moving parts and apprently Windows loads fast at last :D |
Shortcircuit (1666) | ||
| 581094 | 2007-08-15 00:06:00 | A 25% increase in anything on a computer is a huge step up though. | Deane F (8204) | ||
| 581095 | 2007-08-15 00:14:00 | Something else to think about: Because it is a 10,000rpm hard drive, the chance of failure due to wearing out is greater than with your standard 7200rpm. If you are worried about losing data due to hard disk failure, why not set up a mirror RAID array - RAID - 1? It would be faster having x2 7200rpm 16mb buffer hdds in RAID-1 array than a single 10,000rpm raptor hard drive and your data would be safer. |
Bozo (8540) | ||
| 581096 | 2007-08-15 00:24:00 | This is an American gaming computer site. www.jetlinesystems.com Try to base your system around one of there's. Trevor :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 581097 | 2007-08-15 00:42:00 | This is an American gaming computer site . . jetlinesystems . com/index . html" target="_blank">www . jetlinesystems . com Try to base your system around one of there's . Trevor :) I'm impressed with that Trev . . . . . a great answer to a subject with an example tossed in . . . great stuff! Thanks . . . really! |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 581098 | 2007-08-15 01:57:00 | Something else to think about: Because it is a 10,000rpm hard drive, the chance of failure due to wearing out is greater than with your standard 7200rpm. Seeing as Western Digital offers a 5yr warranty on Raptors it would suggest they are no more likely to fail then any other drive. Raptors are built around high end enterprise tech and thus are less likely to fail than other desktop drives ;) It would be faster having x2 7200rpm 16mb buffer hdds in RAID-1 array than a single 10,000rpm raptor hard drive and your data would be safer. RAID 1 is mirroring and offers a very very small performance increase and nowhere near the level a Raptor offers. A Raptor would offer atleast equivalent performance to 2 x 7200rpm drives in RAID 0 without the increased risk. The best solution would be 3 Raptors in RAID 5 but this isn't a cheap exercise. If the bank account is a bit tighter then i would recommend a 72Gb Raptor for your OS and software installs, and a separate larger drive for all your important data e.g media etc. |
Pete O'Neil (6584) | ||
| 581099 | 2007-08-15 02:43:00 | Because it is a 10,000rpm hard drive, the chance of failure due to wearing out is greater than with your standard 7200rpm. So the 10,000 RPM SCSI Drives that have been around for years are no good then? Now 15,000 RPM SCSI Drives are common. SATA2 10k rpm drives are fine if you can afford them. |
Bantu (52) | ||
| 581100 | 2007-08-15 03:43:00 | Yep, expensive for a '25%' speed increase and relatively small size. You would probably just be better off with a SATA2 7,200rpm drive with NCQ (native command queing). Or you could wait until the flash drive HDs start appearing on the market... no noisey moving parts and apprently Windows loads fast at last :D curious as to how much the new lash hard drives will be, anyone know? |
Codex (3761) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||