WD VelociRaptor 300GB HDD vs SSD
Which is best for gamers?
Review Although Western Digital's VelociRaptor is a new model name, you can trace the roots of this new hard drive all the way back to 2003.
The original WD360 Raptor hard drive was something of a one-trick pony as it had a tiny 36GB capacity but could boast the 10,000rpm spin speed that became the signature of the Raptor family.
WD's VelociRaptor WD300GLFS: you're so vaned
The single-platter WD360 was updated to a 74GB twin-platter model, the WD740, later in 2003. It improved performance as well as capacity by adding Tagged Command Queuing (TCQ). The bearings were improved to reduce noise levels.
In 2006, WD launched the WD1500 Raptor which increased capacity to a useful 150GB and added Native Command Queuing (NCQ) as it was a native SATA design rather than an IDE drive with SATA tacked on the back.
VelociRaptor is the fourth-generation Raptor and it’s available in two versions: a single-platter, two-head 150GB model that costs £130 and this two-platter, four-head 300GB model that's twice the capacity but only £50 more expensive.
Crucial's 32GB SSD: pricey
Let’s get the value for money consideration out of the way before we go any further. Over the past few years, hard drives have dropped in price to the extent that the 1TB Hitachi 7K1000 that we used for comparison in testing costs £94, which works out to a mere 9p per gigabyte. That’s quite remarkable considering the headline-grabbing terabyte capacity and the blistering performance of the 7K1000.
COMMENTS
@Adrian
You could most likely treat the X61 that way, even if it had a mechanical hdd, and not the SSD device.
Ever hear of "Thinkvantage Active Protection"? It works, believe me.
//Svein
well said Andy Bright!
couldn't have put it better meshelf!
;)
useless thanks
so why while you gave proper mb/s numbers you dont give anything that tests heavy random IO which, after all, where the SSD might show interesting benefits, or for example tests using two IO threads (for the gamers: think leeching your new game off a p2p net and recording something with fraps)
This is an interesting test, but oh so inconclusive, you stopped halfway!
SSDs
I used the Crucial SSD as it was what I had to hand - I don't have a sample of the OCZ despite asking but when I get one you'll read about it.
I've reviewed the Intel SSD and expect it to go up very soon and then you'll see how a proper SSD performs ...
In an ideal world we would have majored on VelociRaptor vs Raptor but the fact of the matter is that Raptor is now rather old and didn't compare especially well to the Hitachi 7K1000 which is indeed a peach and offers superb value for money.
HD size?
Not sure about you guys, but unless you have around 30-50 games you regularly play, gaming PCs simply don't need the hard capacity of a PC devoted to media.
Nothing wrong with having more HD space of course, but not if it comes at the cost of speed.
Of course gamers could be using their computers for other things, in which case most would opt for a second drive on it's own channel.
However most gamers I know would take a 30gb drive (or even less) if they knew it offered even an imperceptible increase in frame rate or an unnoticeable decrease in load times.
As long as it had the capacity to hold the 1/2 dozen games they regularly play while still maintaining 40-50% free space, they'd be happy.
Second drives are for media, bothersome office applications or whatever else people do when they aren't playing games. And it better be on its own channel, if it even so much as looks at my main hd, it'll be out of the PC and sitting in the corner thinking about what it did.
