# Which would be faster? 2x80GB 7200RPM RAID0 or 1x500GB 5400RPM...



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2009)

Basically, I'm going to be testing two storage options for one of my servers in the coming days:

A.) Two 80GB Western Digital Caviar Blue 7200RPM drives in RAID0 on an ICH7R

or

B.) One 500GB Seagate Momentus 5400RPM drive

I'll probably be doing the tests in the next few days, but I just wanted to see what everyone things the results will be...

And just to make things a little interesting, I'll select one person that guessed correctly and send them one of the small items out of my FS thread, I choose the item and no you aren't getting the power supply.

Specs of Machine:
Pentium D 830@1.5GHz(undervolted and underclocked to save power)
2GB DDR2-667 (4x512MB)
ASUS P5LD2-Deluxe
Vista Ultimate x64

And the drives will NOT be the system drive during testing, so there will be no load on the drives other than the benchmark programs.


----------



## Sir_Real (Aug 6, 2009)

Well its bit of an obveus question really ! How could a single HD ever keep up with 2 HD's running in RAID 0. Raid 0 was invented to almost double data tranfer rate by running 2 harddrives in parralel.

But then again you havent staited if all the drives are sata2 ? If the 2 80gb drives in raid0 are old IDE drives & the 500gb is sata2 then the sata2 500gb is prob still going to be the quicker. (But not by alot).


----------



## Disparia (Aug 6, 2009)

How is "faster" being determined? Sustained? Random? Mix?


----------



## tonyd223 (Aug 6, 2009)

Ok - this is immediately relevant to me as I'm about to do almost the same thing - take 2x250gb drives and raid 0 them. Now, I really want the Raid 0 to be the fastest but I just don't know...

Oh yeah I do - the 80GB drives are 7200rpm and the Seagate is 5400rpm so I go for the raid 0.

(if I win you can keep the stuff...)


----------



## Sir_Real (Aug 6, 2009)

> And just to make things a little interesting, I'll select one person that guessed correctly and send them one of the small items out of my FS thread,



Its only a guessing game because you havent given enough info about the hd's mainly the 2 80gb's sata, sata2 or just IDE ?

The transfer rates can easy be found via a google search.


----------



## Homeless (Aug 6, 2009)

I voted for the 2x80 gig caviar blues raid0.  If the 80 gig drives were from the old days i'd say the 5400


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2009)

Sir_Real said:


> Well its bit of an obveus question really ! How could a single HD ever keep up with 2 HD's running in RAID 0. Raid 0 was invented to almost double data tranfer rate by running 2 harddrives in parralel.
> 
> But then again you havent staited if all the drives are sata2 ? If the 2 80gb drives in raid0 are old IDE drives & the 500gb is sata2 then the sata2 500gb is prob still going to be the quicker. (But not by alot).



Links to the drives are in the first post, all the specs are listed.  Both are SATA 3.0GB/s.

And while you would think the 7200RPM drives would be faster, consider the fact that the Caviar Blue drives have had the same design for years, while the 500GB Momentus is using the latest in hard drive technology...



Jizzler said:


> How is "faster" being determined? Sustained? Random? Mix?



Good question:  Well, I'll probably do an HDTune and HDTach benchmark on each.  I'll judge on highest average transfer speed.



Sir_Real said:


> Its only a guessing game because you havent given enough info about the hd's mainly the 2 80gb's sata, sata2 or just IDE ?
> 
> The transfer rates can easy be found via a google search.



There are links to the specs of both drives in the first post.  What more info do you want?  Is it too hard for you to click them and check if they are SATA, SATAII, or IDE for yourself?  And transfer rates running through an older ICH7R might be a little hard to find...


----------



## KainXS (Aug 6, 2009)

ummmm, thats a notebook hdd, why would you want that in a desktop, is it going to be external


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 6, 2009)

the 2 80gb i have used them in RAID0 in my first rig i built and they worked great.never benched them so i can't really say.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2009)

What are the buffers on the 80s vs the 500?


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 6, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> What are the buffers on the 80s vs the 500?



if you mean cache... I know the 80gbs have 8mb each.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2009)

p_o_s_pc said:


> if you mean cache... I know the 80gbs have 8mb each.



How slow. The 500?


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 6, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How slow. The 500?



no idea what 500gb he is using but most of them have 16mb so that would be my guess


EDIT: the 500GB is ALSO  8mb


----------



## mordant80 (Aug 6, 2009)

Had to vote against everyone else..  Maybe one of the 7200's will have a problem during testing =)


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 6, 2009)

I voted for the 500GB.

Platter Density > Spindle Speed (even if there are two of them)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 6, 2009)

I vote for the Raid 0 setup.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2009)

KainXS said:


> ummmm, thats a notebook hdd, why would you want that in a desktop, is it going to be external



Repurposing of the machine.  Was a workstation, now it is being retired and turned into a torrent/folding machine.  I want the power saving and space of the 500GB drive, as it is more important to me right now than speed, so I'm replacing the two 80GB drives.  I just figured I'd have a little fun with it in the process.

And just because I know it is going to come up, I'm adding the rest of the specs of the machine to the first post.


----------



## Sir_Real (Aug 6, 2009)

@newtekie1

Ok my mistake. I av know idea how but i managed to failed to notice the HD info where also links.

I'd still say the 2 sata2 80gb's in raid 0 will out preform the single 500gb.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 6, 2009)

does that PD still run hot as hell even undervolted and underclocked? Also does it still draw more then 45w


----------



## allen337 (Aug 6, 2009)

raid even with two single 80 drives will smax down any single 7200rpm drive even the raptor, not the ssd


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2009)

p_o_s_pc said:


> does that PD still run hot as hell even undervolted and underclocked? Also does it still draw more then 45w



Well, I can't really talk as to temperatures.  The machine originaly had a P4 530 in it, the board only supports up to Pentium Ds(I was origianlly hoping to drop a Celeron 1400 in it actually).  So I stuck the Pentium D 830 in there instead so I could at least get some SMP folding going.  The only problem was that the 830 I had didn't have a heatsink, so I have to use the Pentium 4's heatsink, which just can't handle the heat from the Pentium D.  

With everything at stock, the Pentium D would idle at 65°C with the CPU fan screaming, and any load would shoot the temps right up past 75°C, and start to throttle.  With it undervolted and underclocked, idle temps are down into to the 45°C range, and load stays under 70°C, but the CPU fan still starts to scream if there is any load on the processor.  I've got a XigmaTech heatsink on the way though...  I'll probably return the processor to stock speeds once it gets here, assuming it will remain stable at the lower voltage...


----------



## allen337 (Aug 6, 2009)

you see the reviews on that 5400 rpm drive? I say it dies in 3 months also


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 6, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Well, I can't really talk as to temperatures.  The machine originaly had a P4 530 in it, the board only supports up to Pentium Ds(I was origianlly hoping to drop a Celeron 1400 in it actually).  So I stuck the Pentium D 830 in there instead so I could at least get some SMP folding going.  The only problem was that the 830 I had didn't have a heatsink, so I have to use the Pentium 4's heatsink, which just can't handle the heat from the Pentium D.
> 
> With everything at stock, the Pentium D would idle at 65°C with the CPU fan screaming, and any load would shoot the temps right up past 75°C, and start to throttle.  With it undervolted and underclocked, idle temps are down into to the 45°C range, and load stays under 70°C, but the CPU fan still starts to scream if there is any load on the processor.  I've got a XigmaTech heatsink on the way though...  I'll probably return the processor to stock speeds once it gets here, assuming it will remain stable at the lower voltage...



wow  my 5kBe(65w) with a HSF from a my 4850e(45w) even with the 5kbe @3ghz it idled 40c and loaded around 65c.Put the Tt V1 on it idle 25c load 38c . the PD was really a fail IMO but i would love to have one just to see myself side by side how it did against the X2s and i want to have a 5ghz dual core house heater(not a room heater a room heater is a x2@3ghz or more)


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 6, 2009)

allen337 said:


> you see the reviews on that 5400 rpm drive? I say it dies in 3 months also



I've had the drive for well over 3 months in a laptop, and it hasn't failed me yet.  I'm guessing the problem with the drives failing probably falls more on the idiotic consumers than the drive itself.  Newegg reviewers rank lower than Best Buy employees on the latter of computer knowledge...

I'm surprised there aren't any "I dropped it and it stopped working 0 Eggs!" reviews...



p_o_s_pc said:


> wow  my 5kBe(65w) with a HSF from a my 4850e(45w) even with the 5kbe @3ghz it idled 40c and loaded around 65c.Put the Tt V1 on it idle 25c load 38c . the PD was really a fail IMO but i would love to have one just to see myself side by side how it did against the X2s and i want to have a 5ghz dual core house heater(not a room heater a room heater is a x2@3ghz or more)



I've owned several, my Socket 939 x2 outperformed them all.  Even my 805@4.0GHz(highest I ever got one on air) couldn't touch the Athlon X2 4400+@2.8GHz...

The Pentium Ds were just a stop gap so that Intel could get some form of dual core out on the market to at least offer some kind of competing product to the X2s while Intel worked on the Core 2s.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 6, 2009)

I voted Raid0, because in my experience even two 5.4k drives in raid0 gave better results than a single 7.2k drive.


----------



## EnglishLion (Aug 6, 2009)

RAID0 7200 rpm I would have thought it was obvious.


----------



## theeldest (Aug 8, 2009)

Homeless said:


> I voted for the 2x80 gig caviar blues raid0.  If the 80 gig drives were from the old days i'd say the 5400



Second this point. If the 80GBs were from back when 80GB was a lot, then the 500GB would win. Since they're all new drives, the 80GBs will win.


----------



## 3870x2 (Aug 8, 2009)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16822135106 
Last review states that the 7200 RPM 80GBs underperformed in HDTach.  Im assuming there is something in error or problem (though im not sure) with the 7200 80GBs, so the 5200 would probably be faster.  I want to know the results now! 

Looking closer, users are getting a 105 average read on the drives.  Might there possibly be something wrong with the one(s) you have there?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 8, 2009)

Big Bump for the weekend crowd, I'll probably be running the tests either tonight or tomorrow.  I'll post the results Monday.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 9, 2009)

Ran the test...very interesting results...HDTune puts the two setups within 10MB/s of eachother...


----------



## Zubasa (Aug 9, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Ran the test...very interesting results...HDTune puts the two setups within 10MB/s of eachother...


Now that I vote for the Raid post the results newtekie!


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 9, 2009)

As I said, I'll post the results Monday night and the person picked to recieve the "price" will be announced then also.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Aug 9, 2009)

A biased question, but the 2 7200s will defo beat 1 5200.....


----------



## Kenshai (Aug 9, 2009)

I'm going to bet on the 500, both the 2.5" drives I have are pretty decent speed wise.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 9, 2009)

in this sense it would be the rotational speeds that win out, as Cache can only go so far. If you think about it why are there 10000-15000 RPM drives, its fact they are way faster than 7200 and 5400.


----------



## allen337 (Aug 10, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Ran the test...very interesting results...HDTune puts the two setups within 10MB/s of eachother...




Thats kinda hard to believe my 2 80 gig wd 2 meg cache do 105-110 mb/s with hd tune

what raid controller you using?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 10, 2009)

allen337 said:


> Thats kinda hard to believe my 2 80 gig wd 2 meg cache do 105-110 mb/s with hd tune
> 
> what raid controller you using?



Intel ICH7R off a 945P.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 11, 2009)

Results:

*7200 RPM RAID0*










*5400RPM Single Drive*









Clearly the 7200RPM RAID0 setup is faster, but not by nearly as much as some of you probably thought.  In this case, clearly platter density makes a huge impact on performance, to the point where a single 5400RPM can almost match two much smaller drives in RAID0.  Also, the older RAID controller plays a huge role in performance, the old onboard RAID controllers were crap.

Winner: *Nick89* (Please contact me with your shipping information so I an ship your prize.)


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 11, 2009)

Wait, there were prizes? I want a cookie! 

edit: told ya!


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 11, 2009)

how you pick winner? congrats to nice btw


----------



## theeldest (Aug 11, 2009)

I would like to see you run the HD Tune test on just the first 160GB of the 500GB drive for a more apples to apples comparison.


----------



## Nick89 (Aug 11, 2009)

Awesome. And thanks for doing this test work newtekie.


----------



## allen337 (Aug 11, 2009)

I want you to setup the raid with write back cache enabled on the 2-80 gig and run again


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 11, 2009)

p_o_s_pc said:


> how you pick winner? congrats to nice btw



Randomize.com



Nick89 said:


> Awesome. And thanks for doing this test work newtekie.



Your Welcome



allen337 said:


> I want you to setup the raid with write back cache enabled on the 2-80 gig and run again



I did it in both Write Through and Write Back, the performance difference was next to nothing.


----------

