Monday, April 5th 2010

New WD VelociRaptor HDD to Take HDD Closest to SSD

First surfaced earlier this year, Western Digital (WD) is just about ready with its newest line of VelociRaptor high-performance hard drives. The second generation of VelociRaptor will take a shot at much expensive solid state drives on two fronts: transfer speeds and access times, at highly competitive price-per-gigabyte. With transfer speeds, the new VelociRaptor drives offer sustained read speeds of 145 MB/s, while having access times of 3 ms, as close as it gets to flash storage. These are conventional (Winchester) hard drives with spindle-speeds of 10,000 rpm, double the areal density as its previous generation and having an onboard cache of 32 MB, with the standard SATA 6 Gb/s interface.

The actual drives come in thick 2.5" form-factor, with a 3.5" bay mounting frame that also serves as a heatsink since it has aluminum ridges. The drives have a noise-output of up to 37 dBA. WD rates its MTBF at 1.4 million hours, and backs it with a five-year company warranty. The drives come in capacities of 150 GB, 300 GB, 450 GB, and 600 GB with prices expected to be highly competitive with SSDs in terms of price-per-gigabyte, given its performance level.
Source: TechConnect Magazine
Add your own comment

76 Comments on New WD VelociRaptor HDD to Take HDD Closest to SSD

#26
Melvis
I think i just found my next gaming HDD...shame there so expensive here in AUS, over $1 per GB =/
Posted on Reply
#27
Makaveli
Looks interesting as a Game drive, still won't replace and SSD for an OS drive. I really want to see this 3ms in actions because its takes 15k RPM drives to get that low and they are doing it with 10k.
Posted on Reply
#28
95Viper
This is good. I love my VRaptors and these are definitely going into my next build.
I love that warm fuzzy feeling you get from platters... sorta like LPs (33 and a half vinyl records).

:)
Posted on Reply
#29
Phxprovost
Xtreme Refugee
Delta6326are we talking like $70 for 150gb or will it cost more?
:laugh: i doubt it, im thinking atleast $150~ for the 150gb and god knows what for the 600
btarunrIt's the 3 ms access-time that's most exciting. I would expect the 600 GB model to sell around the $170 mark.
i expect it to be atleast $350~, guess we will see :toast:
Posted on Reply
#30
Delta6326
dang they said it was going be at a good price but thats way to much
Posted on Reply
#31
Disparia
Nice. I'll be looking of these drives closely...
Aleksander DishnicaWhy did they produce it with sata III and not Sata I or II if it does not utilizes the whole bandwidth???
Because that's the standard we're on now. Except most new drives to be using it.

Also, these drives (like the previous models) are used in between the "I need 10K/15K SAS" and "7200rpm SATA" situations. The drives to cable ratio is not always 1:1.
Posted on Reply
#32
Kovoet
I want this Hdd badly
Posted on Reply
#33
Atom_Anti
37 dBA:eek: too loud using it in laptop. Probably just going to wait for cheaper SSDs.
Posted on Reply
#34
xrealm20
Atom -- I don't think at 12.5MM high 2.5" hard drive would fit in a laptop - not to mention, the amount of heat that these produce would be conducive to a laptop enclosure... Hence the large metal heat sink mounting bracket......
Posted on Reply
#35
extrasalty
I've loved my Raptor for 3 years until I got my first SSD.
And then my X25-M.
Now I'm really holding myself from buying 2 more for different systems because right around Christmas Intel will drop their prices in half. That means 160GB for about $220. The Raptors better come up with some good pricing.
Posted on Reply
#36
Polarman
600GB does sound better. I'm pretty sure that price per gb will be lower than ssd's.
Posted on Reply
#37
Imsochobo
extrasaltyI've loved my Raptor for 3 years until I got my first SSD.
And then my X25-M.
Now I'm really holding myself from buying 2 more for different systems because right around Christmas Intel will drop their prices in half. That means 160GB for about $220. The Raptors better come up with some good pricing.
Hold off till next gen ssd comes, prices will CRASH on x25-M go raid, more than enough for OS(raid 0 goodness for non important stuff)

Im running 40 1tb drives in my nas, thats about for storage.
Posted on Reply
#39
TheLaughingMan
Delta6326dang they said it was going be at a good price but thats way to much
They didn't say that. They said the price would be highly competitive with SSD prices. That just means if it is cheaper per GB than SSD (which is a given) then the statement is true.

I am just glad to see I was right about this when this story cropped up a few weeks back.

Since these are sustained reads of 145 MB/s, then the burst reads should be in the low 200ish range, say 215 MB/s. That is rather impressive.

What about Write speeds. Any word on that projected figure?
Posted on Reply
#40
hat
Enthusiast
Hm... how loud is 37dBA?

I would like the 300gb model to replace my system drive...
Posted on Reply
#41
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
btarunrIt's the 3 ms access-time that's most exciting. I would expect the 600 GB model to sell around the $170 mark.
Phxprovost:laugh: i doubt it, im thinking atleast $150~ for the 150gb and god knows what for the 600



i expect it to be atleast $350~, guess we will see :toast:
Delta6326dang they said it was going be at a good price but thats way to much
600GB for $170, I tend to believe BTA, he "knows" these things.
Posted on Reply
#42
Kantastic
600GB for $170 is amazing... I guess it's only natural for WD to lower the prices on their performance mechanical drives because of how cheap SSD's are getting.
Posted on Reply
#43
TheLaughingMan
Kantastic600GB for $170 is amazing... I guess it's only natural for WD to lower the prices on their performance mechanical drives because of how cheap SSD's are getting.
Plus it is cheaper to make larger capacity drives now due to increase in density for disk surfaces. You can get a 1 TB drive now that will out perform a 320 GB HDD from 2 or 3 years ago for cheaper. The same parallel for the old Raptors and the new as their is about a 3 year gap there, right?
Posted on Reply
#44
Trigger911
nice to see these making a comeback but I think its useful they keep old tech around to challenge the new stuff. competition beings new tweaks and such.
Posted on Reply
#45
imperialreign
TheLaughingManSince these are sustained reads of 145 MB/s, then the burst reads should be in the low 200ish range, say 215 MB/s. That is rather impressive.
Combined with the insane random-access speeds the VR drives are notorious for, is a big reason why dedicated gamers still prefer the VR over any SSD.

Personally, I'd get an SSD for storage, but not for any of my primary drives.
Posted on Reply
#46
Kantastic
imperialreignCombined with the insane random-access speeds the VR drives are notorious for, is a big reason why dedicated gamers still prefer the VR over any SSD.

Personally, I'd get an SSD for storage, but not for any of my primary drives.
SSDs are 1000 times faster than VR's when it comes to access times. ;)
Posted on Reply
#47
TheLaughingMan
imperialreignCombined with the insane random-access speeds the VR drives are notorious for, is a big reason why dedicated gamers still prefer the VR over any SSD.

Personally, I'd get an SSD for storage, but not for any of my primary drives.
That is completely backwards.

The reason most gamers still use the Raptors is the fact that game data gets updated, save files change all the time, and games will be installed and removed. SSD have a limited write numbers and this would be hell on the drive.
Posted on Reply
#48
Makaveli
imperialreignCombined with the insane random-access speeds the VR drives are notorious for, is a big reason why dedicated gamers still prefer the VR over any SSD.

Personally, I'd get an SSD for storage, but not for any of my primary drives.
lol what are you smoking?

SSD's will improve game loading time that is about it, the only reason gamers are sticking to VR is because they can't afford an SSD or because they need more space.
Posted on Reply
#49
ACEkombatkiwi
Musselsheh, that again. you'd be surprised how many people make that mistake.


when you RAID two drives, you're RAIDing two sata ports.
You arent running the two drives off the one port, they get 150MB/s each!
I am not talking a simple 2 drive raid 0 array, if these drives are at a price point to rival SSD's then a 4+ array is more to my tastes and why sata 3 is a must :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#50
TheLaughingMan
ACEkombatkiwiI am not talking a simple 2 drive raid 0 array, if these drives are at a price point to rival SSD's then a 4+ array is more to my tastes and why sata 3 is a must :rockout:
Still not needed. As he was explaining, your total through put is not based on the SATA channel max, but the SATA total throughput for all channels used. As such, each new SATA lane you add, the more throughput you get.

Example:
1 HDD + 1 SATA2 plug = 300 MB/s max theoretical
2 HDD + 2 SATA2 plug = 600 MB/s max theoretical
3 HDD + 3 SATA2 plug = 900 MB/s max theoretical
4 HDD + 4 SATA2 plug = 1200 MB/s max theoretical
etc. as each HDD will have their own SATA lane to themself

This HDD will never full saturate a SATA 2 lane, so have all the extra throughput from a SATA 3 setup is pointless cause it will never be used.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 29th, 2024 21:18 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts