Raptor vs Caviar

[error_f0rce]

Ok, I'm getting a new SATA II (3.0GBs) drive. What do you think between (dont' factor in disk space):

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB Serial ATA II 7200RPM Hard Drive w/16MB Buffer

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s

Please comment on performance, speed, reliability. Keep in mind this will be running as a stand alone drive, no RAID 0 right now, I can't afford it. :(

[gR3iF]

the fastest is the raptor then there is a gap a big gap and then the seagate and then the caviar


from my personall feeling the raptor hdds are a bit loud when you are unpacking a movie or something but its a very fast hdd

the seagate is loud while writing and is a good drive

the caviar is from my point of view the oldest and slowest hdd


my tipp would be the seagata the raptor is just too expensive you have to have a system which can handle a raptor otherwise you wont see the difference

[giorgos th.]

if you can afford the raptor buy it.its the best choice if you wont go for raid.

[gR3iF]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/06/wd1500ad_raptor_xtends_performance_lead/


read this about it

[Alec§taar]

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s

Good disk on READS! In a test here (url below) it showed nearly 240mb/sec rates on READS... unreal!

However, it uses more CPU (4%) than my setup on RAID did (0%), & even my CENATEK RocketDrive SSD (3%) does in a test we ran here on HDDTach...

(The low CPU use on my RAID setup was due to it being offloaded from my system CPU via the caching RAID 0 controller in my signature - it has an onboard Intel I/O controller onboard it is why & a GOOD well-written interrupt/filtering driver)

* Not exactly "fair comparison" on that account, but still, an indicator!

Please comment on performance, speed, reliability. Keep in mind this will be running as a stand alone drive, no RAID 0 right now, I can't afford it. :(

Right... which is why I mentioned what I did above in my system showing 0% CPU use in this test below WHILE USING A RAID CONTROLLER (higher-end PCI-e one)

A RAID 0 array, vs. that very Seagate "perpendicular recording" disk!

(That Seagate "new tech perpendicular recording" unit was EXCELLENT on READS: E.G.-> 239mb/sec., vs. my RAID 0 setup using "Raptor X's" doing 168mb/sec (exceeding the SATA bus 150mb/sec. ceiling, no doubt by bursting out of my controller's 128mb onboard RAM cache is my guess))

Still, I lost on that account though on my end on READ tests anyhow, the perpendicular recording disks ROCK on READS due to that technology's higher "aerial platter density" etc. (too bad it's not 10k rpm speeds, because its access/seek would be quicker)!

(Still, I won on Access/Seek & CPU tests as well (2/3 tests went my setup's way))

Anyhow/anyways:

Here's the URL to the test results:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=13650

A "hands-on test comparison" done here on the forums, for your reference (see bottom-most photos for my disks tested (the RaptorX RAID 0 & even my CENATEK RocketDrive SSD), vs. the upper photo of INSTG8R's perpendicular recording technology Seagate disk)


:)

* Enjoy, & hope that sheds SOME light on your situation...

APK

[INSTG8R]

Check Alex's Link your Answer lies there ;)

[demonbrawn]

I'll have to agree. I bought that Seagate drive and my performance went way up! However, here are a few things to keep in mind if you are going to buy it:

a) It's known to be a little glitchy when installing Windows, so you might have to restart the installation. (Luckily I only had to restart once. I've heard people have to start over more than a couple of times. Annoying, but in my opinion, well worth it.)
b) There's a little jumper on the back of the hard drive that is set to run the disk at SATA I speeds. You have to move that jumper over to enable SATA II speeds.

Anyway, it's a great drive and I think Perpindicular recording is going to be the new norm.

[error_f0rce]

Sorry guys, the thread name should have read "Barracuda vs Caviar" (Raptor is out of my price range). Thanks for the input so far!!

[markkleb]

I have been using 4 Hitachi 80 gig Sata2 in raid0. In benchmarks the only thing that beat it was 4 of the 16mb buffer HDDs. It stomped 2 Raptors in Raid0.

In my UltraBlue comp I got 3 WD 160 gig Sata2 in Raid0, I like them as they are quietier.

I did read a review that said the Segates were fast in some regards but slower in others.

If you use just one any of them will be fine, but if you are gonna go raid in the future I would go with the WD.

And in case Raptor guys want to argue about the speeds get a faster ATTO score first...
http://acoolidea.blogspot.com/

[error_f0rce]

Another question: Is there such a thing as SATA I and SATA II cables? I can't find any on NewEgg that list any type of bandwidth difference... anyone? My current board only support SATA I, and it came with some cables. Should those cables that came with the board work with the SATA II drive? (man I feel like such a newb asking this :D )

[markkleb]

Nope, I had the same prob not that long ago. I bought them both. They work the same.

[W1zzard]

i've been preferring wd harddisks all my life because i had very good experience with their build quality .. out of like 10 wd hdds in the last 10+ years (first was 220 MB) only one ever broke .. after like 3 years of 24/7 running in my basement server

[zekrahminator]

In my experience, your WD hard drive will be very stable...unless you move it while the system is on. Then it will sound like a race car and then die :p. $80 that could have been spent on something else...oh well at least I have SATA now.

[demonbrawn]

Oh, and the Seagate hard drive comes with a 5-year manufacturer's warranty. Hard to beat that.

[error_f0rce]

All the input is fantastic!! I've decided to go with the 320GB Barracuda for a couple reasons. The PRT (Perpendicular Recording Technology) is one, and the also that the last 2 WD's I've had went out on me within a 1-2 years and the Seagate 120GB ATA I have now has never had a problem. I know everyone's experiences are different, but I think everyone can relate to the "bad taste" that gets left in your mouth after an expensive piece of hardware goes out on you. :mad:

Here is the new hotness: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822148140

Thanks for all the help guys, you're great :rockout:

[bbriand]

Another question: Is there such a thing as SATA I and SATA II cables? I can't find any on NewEgg that list any type of bandwidth difference... anyone? My current board only support SATA I, and it came with some cables. Should those cables that came with the board work with the SATA II drive? (man I feel like such a newb asking this :D )


I second that question as I've been wondering the same thing myself. I remember a thread on here where someone mentioned that mobo's ship with a SATA I cable (to keep down on costs). I figured the guy was joking but it did make me wonder.

Bill

[demonbrawn]

You know, I looked into that out of curiosity just now, and my mobo said it shipped with SATA II cables. Interesting...

[Alec§taar]

See subject-line/title above, & answer question IF you know how to, please... thanks!

:)

You know, I looked into that out of curiosity just now, and my mobo said it shipped with SATA II cables. Interesting...

Ah, so there are really "SATA II cables"...

* My mobo said the same & I am wondering IF I put them onto my disks or not (right ones, SATA I vs. SATA II ones)... how does one "ID" the diff. between them?

Thanks for info., to "those-in-the-know" on that question (was asked here a couple times now)...

APK

P.S.=> i've been preferring wd harddisks all my life because i had very good experience with their build quality .. out of like 10 wd hdds in the last 10+ years (first was 220 MB) only one ever broke .. after like 3 years of 24/7 running in my basement server

Agreed, 110%... I've used PLENTY of other oem's hdd's (Maxtor, Quantum, Seagate, IBM, & Conner (way back when on that last one)) & of IDE/EIDE, PATA, SCSI-1/2/3-UltraScSi, & I always came back (if not eventually) to Western Digital for workstations/home usage...

INTERESTING AND COOL STORY

I had 1 go bad on me, a 36gb unit back in 2003 "RAPTOR" SATA generation #1! 5 year warranty is on ALL the "raptor" series no less (somebody mentioned that earlier, & WD was the FIRST here on EIDE/SATA disks mind you)!

(Right away too, so it must have just been a "lemon from the factory", these happen)

So, what did WD do on the "RMA"?

Something VERY cool -> They sent me a LARGER & FASTER 74gb unit to replace it (which costs a LOT more)!

They did it NO CHARGE, no less!

That replacement 74gb runs to this day since 2003, strong, in my external SATA 2.0 USB drive enclosure... apk

[bbriand]

I have been searching and reading but without much success. From what I can gather SATA2 cables are just higher quality and are better shielded... oh and they may have a "clip" that locks them into place.

It seems thats the only difference as speed/transfer rates are the same for both cables.

Weird.

Bill

[demonbrawn]

Well, my SATA II cables that came with my motherboard certainly don't have clips. You think maybe that is referring to second generation SATA cables? Being as far as quality is concerned?

[Alec§taar]

See subject-line/title question above first...

Second, if you would & know the answer? Well, lol, answer it please (if you guys can that is, I am not sure if this IS answerable imo)!

:)

* Thanks!

APK

P.S. => Hey, I am sure you guys are curious as well... because, imo @ least? I want to run the RIGHT cables for my SATA 2.0 caching controller & get the highest/best possible performance, & especially if I already have the SATA II specific cables! apk

[bbriand]

I agree. I mean if there is a performance gain to be had I wants it!

Somebody must know the answer... maybe we should start a new thread with an appropriate title heading?

Bill

[Alec§taar]

LOL, first? See subject-line/title above:

I agree. I mean if there is a performance gain to be had I wants it!

Somebody must know the answer... maybe we should start a new thread with an appropriate title heading?

Bill

"YOU GO MAN!"

:)

* The post-thread starter Err0r_Force is curious as well... as I am sure, all of us are!

APK

[bbriand]

Started a new thread on this. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=14515

I have to hear an answer on this... even if it cannot be backed by any verifiable proof. I just want to get a warm/squishy feeling so I can sleep better tonight knowing if my current cable is giving me the best possible performance or the new cable I buy after work is... ;)

Bill

[markkleb]

There is no difference, I just cut the ends off 1 of each. I checked them both with a Ohm meter and they are both VERY close.

The metal clips just make the conn a little more secure. I have read a bunch of reviews and they all say the same there is no diff.

As to shielding, you can buy better sheilded cables, but the performance is the same they are just better sheilded against interferance when used OUTSIDE the case (closer to speakers, magnets, Powercords)

[demonbrawn]

BTW, the seagate drive, as nice as it is, is really noisy. I bought a fan controller because I thought my fans were noisy and "whining." Well, it turns out that the whine was actually coming from my hard drive and not my fans, and boy does it whine. That's the only complaint I have about it.