PDA

View Full Version : Which HD should I get?



RocafellaXXX
11-26-2004, 02:44 PM
It finally came down to choosing between two HD since I got everything else. My choice is between Seagate 200GB Serial ATA and Western Digital Raptor 74GB Serial ATA.

I know that Raptor is much faster HD but its only 74GB and I can only afford one right now, but the only software that I'm going to have is XP SP2 Home Edition and couple of games. Is 200GB better than 10,000RPM or is it the other way around?

gain967
11-26-2004, 03:38 PM
both are awesome get the least expensive of the 2.

Destroyer4312
11-26-2004, 03:47 PM
I would think GB would be better but who needs 200 gbs honostly? i only have a 40 gb and im fine with it... and i still have 15 gigs left with tons of games and movies installed...

fabulouscoops
11-26-2004, 04:52 PM
You are comparing apples and oranges. Which is better bigger or faster?
If you do not have a big need for storage like lots of video files or tons of MP3 files, then the raptor is a great fast drive. It will load your OS and games faster.
Another option (for about the same cost) is 2x80 GB 7,200 rpm Serial ATA drives in a RAID-0 array. That will give you 160 GB of space at a speed just about the same as one 10,000 rpm raptor. The best of both worlds, big and fast.

johns1234
12-10-2004, 01:49 PM
Niether .. Go to NewEgg. You want that 160 gig Hitachi SATA :-)

oildalemonkey
12-10-2004, 07:18 PM
Keep in mind that the Raptor may be a little noisier. My wife has one in her rig and it has a noticeable high-pitch whine.
<span class="ev_code_RED">[760]</span><span class="ev_code_GREY">ParVo</span>

doyoucare
12-10-2004, 07:30 PM
It wasnt clear if you are able to RAID those two drives?

I run two 38G Raptors in RAID0 and it is wicked fast. I do believe they are quieter than any of the other 7500RPM drives around me.

FAB is correct in that this is apples and oranges and depends if you are going to use RAID or not - and what you spend your time doing.

Due to the density of the data bits - two 200G drives in a RAID0 config will transfer data at least as fast as two 10000rpm RAPTORs. The RAPTORs data is less dense. SO both would process video and games very well. Data base related apps, small apps would appear slightly faster on the RAPTORs.

As I said I have two RAPTORs - but if I were to buy two drives today it would be two 200+ 7500rpm SATA drives AND run them in a RAID0 configuration.
But thats just me....

doyoucare
12-10-2004, 07:31 PM
I also meant to say tomshardware.com actually benchmarked this setup some time back. Each configuration did better in different areas.....

Sir_Niets
12-13-2004, 07:18 PM
Although you have probably made your choice already-

Please remember that a RAID 0 array is not twice as likely to failure, but closer to 5 times as prone to failure. Single drives have problems all the time and can recover from a failed cluster, bad FAT/NTFS table, etc. and continue to work for years. If a RAID 0 has any break in it's stripe set (meaning any cluster, sector, table, etc. on either drive has a problem), it will halt and require a format and resynchronization, installation of operating system and all apps.

(If the search function worked, there was a long discussion in this forum about RAID 0.)

I ran RAID 0 for a long time because I loved the speed, but now I only run RAID 1 (mirroring) because I'm tired of the hassels and broken stripe sets. If one of the RAID 1 mirrored drives have a problem, the good drive rebuilds it and I continue on like nothing happened. The servers I build for work are all RAID 5 (reduntant with parity), or RAID 1 and use the NAS.

fabulouscoops
12-13-2004, 07:56 PM
Good point Sir_Niets. I did not know that the failure rate was more than double. My attitude has been that since I have never had a drive fail, the odds are that one of my two RAIDed drives will not fail either. But I know it is riskier.
Sometimes statistics can be misleading though. If the failure rate is one in 10000 drives fail per year and that number could go up to 5 per 10000 it is still a low percentage, even though it sounds bad to say "5 times more likely to fail". On my home system, built for speed and not data security, I will continue to take my chances but it is a personal decision. On a server meant for business use it would be wrong to use anything but a multiply redundant system with frequent backups.

Sir_Niets
12-14-2004, 10:12 AM
Good attitude and good decision scoops. For some reason I just about got flamed when I brought this up in the thread before.

It is a personal decision based on how you value data, performance and costs. (With enough money you can run RAID 0+1, 4 drives.)

My motherboard supports 4 IDE channels and 4 RAID IDE channels (possible 8 IDE devices). This is why I run RAID 1 to protect years of family pictures, resumes, e-mails, etc. (yes, I back up this data, but that is another story). I then boot to another operating system and hard drive (non-RAID) when I game. If a game or patch ever causes problems, I just reformat that hard drive and install again and go without the disruption in my main system drive array.

Everyone makes these decisions based on their own value set.

Gman