We tested the VelociRaptor on our trusty Skulltrail system with dual Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 processors overclocked to 4.0GHz and 4GB of Kingston FB-DIMM memory all running the 64-bit Windows Vista Ultimate Edition. We compared the VelociRaptor with a 150GB Raptor, the Hitachi 7K1000 that we’ve already mentioned and a 32GB Crucial solid-state drive.
We’re confident that SSD technology will replace HDD in time but aren't sure how quickly it will happen. So the Crucial SSD offers an interesting comparison despite its startling price of £320.
HDTach 184.108.40.206 Results
Data-transfer rates in MB/s - Longer bars are better
Random Access Times in Seconds - Shorter bars are better
HD Tach shows that the Crucial SSD has blazingly fast read speeds, iffy write speeds and poor burst speeds. The fast read speeds really stand out when the three hard drives read 2GB of files from the Crucial as the hard drive is the limiting factor compared to the SSD.
It came as no surprise that the VelociRaptor beat the Raptor with the Hitachi trailing in third place.
Windows Start-up Results
Times in Seconds
Shorter bars are better
It was a different story in a simple test to see how long it took Windows to start up. It’s worth spelling out that Skulltrail takes far longer to perform its POST test than any other motherboard we’ve seen in a living age, so Linux and Mac fiends shouldn’t scoff at the awfulness of Vista. Well, not in this case anyway.
This time the Crucial won, the Hitachi came second, with the two WDs in the rear.
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.
well said Andy Bright!
couldn't have put it better meshelf!
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!
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.
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.