WD Raptor vs. Seagate 7200.11

[DanishDevil]

I have a Western Digital Raptor 10,000RPM 74GB 8mb Cache, and a Seagate 7200.11 7,200RPM 32mb Cache, and I wanted to share my Sandra Read Benchmark results with you.

Here is the Seagate:

And the Raptor:

Any ideas to why my Raptor's benching so low?

 

[intel igent]

your access time looks faster, as for the other thing (transfer rate?) it prolly has to do with the seagate having quadruple the cache

 

[farlex85]

Yea, raptors are faster at access times but are slower than the perpindicular recording drives in transfer rates. The 74gb is slower than the 150gb too, b/c of its smaller cache.

 

[jbunch07]

your access time looks faster, as for the other thing (transfer rate?) it prolly has to do with the seagate having quadruple the cache

i would say intel is right but not really sure...

 

[DanishDevil]

That's what I figured, and that's why I'm glad I went with a 32mb cache drive versus getting a WD (they only go up to 16mb I believe at the moment). Too bad their price dropped $30 since I bought it a few weeks ago

Mussels swears that my Raptor should be indexing in the high 60s or 70s, though.

 

[jbunch07]

maybe he thought it was a 16mb cache version

 

[intel igent]

if you bought your drive a few weeks ago it should be 16mb cache if you got 8mb cache they sold you old stock, id go back and swap it for a newer (16mb cache) model should be a tad quicker in transfer rates

a larger hard drive will be faster cuz it has more platters or something like that may be better to ask Dan or bta about that

 

[DanishDevil]

I do know that more platters = more power consumption and more heat. As far as speed, I'm not sure.

And I bought this Raptor years ago. I was just justifying to myself why it wasn't worth keeping (I want a quieter PC), and someone saw that my Raptor benched lower than it should.

 

[newtekie1]

The 8MB Raptors were fast for their times, but the 16MB Raptors had several improvements that increase their speed, it is more than just a cache thing.

The 8MB cache Raptors(Model # ending in GD) used a Parallel ATA to Serial ATA bridge, they also lacked NCQ, the used TCQ instead which isn't really supported by any SATA controllers it is a SCSI thing.

The 16MB cache Raptors(Model # ending in ADFD/AHFD/ADFS) used a native SATA Interface, and NCQ. This really increased the speeds of the drives.

The Raptors have great burst speeds and seek speeds, but the larger 7200.11 have faster sustained read speeds.

 

[Wile E]

The 8MB Raptors were fast for their times, but the 16MB Raptors had several improvements that increase their speed, it is more than just a cache thing.

The 8MB cache Raptors(Model # ending in GD) used a Parallel ATA to Serial ATA bridge, they also lacked NCQ, the used TCQ instead which isn't really supported by any SATA controllers it is a SCSI thing.

The 16MB cache Raptors(Model # ending in ADFD/AHFD/ADFS) used a native SATA Interface, and NCQ. This really increased the speeds of the drives.

The Raptors have great burst speeds and seek speeds, but the larger 7200.11 have faster sustained read speeds.

Which is all true, but despite that, every raptor I've ever seen, even the 36GB 8MB cache models sustain more than 57MB/s. Then again, that's using HD Tach, so that may explain the different results.

@DanishDevil - Can you run HD Tach on the drives?

 

[imperialreign]

All and good, but part of the reason I prefer the Barracuda's is their higher cache size. Raptor's are great for quick accessing (like gaming, etc), but the Barracuda's tend to be best all-around, IMO.

 

[DanishDevil]

Which is all true, but despite that, every raptor I've ever seen, even the 36GB 8MB cache models sustain more than 57MB/s. Then again, that's using HD Tach, so that may explain the different results.

@DanishDevil - Can you run HD Tach on the drives?

Gaah I just pulled the drive. I'll run it later when I get my Cosmos S.

 

[Wile E]

Gaah I just pulled the drive. I'll run it later when I get my Cosmos S.

NP. I think the low looking read speeds might just be benchmark program differences.

 

[DanishDevil]

They very well may be.

 

[jbunch07]

quick question
would it be better to run a single new age 150gb 16mb cache raptor
or a 7200 32mb cache raid 0?

 

[Wile E]

quick question
would it be better to run a single new age 150gb 16mb cache raptor
or a 7200 32mb cache raid 0?

7200 32MB cache RAID0. No question. lol.

 

[DanishDevil]

Yeah. The 32mbs of cache and NCQ really helps. OMG I would love another one of these in Raid 0. Oh jeez I'm fantasizing LMAO.

 

[Wile E]

Yeah. The 32mbs of cache and NCQ really helps. OMG I would love another one of these in Raid 0. Oh jeez I'm fantasizing LMAO.

ebay the Raptor, then use that to put towards another Baracuda.

 

[DanishDevil]

Hehe. I could. It'd only be like a $50 upgrade. Jesus. 1.5TB in raid 0 at those speeds... brb. Gotta jerk it.

 

[jbunch07]

7200 32MB cache RAID0. No question. lol.

haha thats what i though just wanted to make sure
im going to do that in my new sys then!
thnx

 

[DanishDevil]

haha thats what i though just wanted to make sure
im going to do that in my new sys then!
thnx

They'll be WAY quieter than the Raptors, too.

 

[jbunch07]

They'll be WAY quieter than the Raptors, too.

very true...good call!

 

[DanishDevil]

Grab 'em off Newegg for $150 shipped while you can if you're building soon. I paid $170 + tax and shipping for mine 3 weeks ago.

 

[ktr]

The age of raptors are over. WD needs to make a perpendicular 10k hdd

 

[jbunch07]

thanks ill check them out but i have to get the MB first...