Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jfri

Which harddrive is fastest on my system

Recommended Posts

And how much difference would it be betweenWD Raptor 74 Gb SATAI 150 Gb/s 10000 rpmSeagate Baracuda 7200.11 500 Gb SATAII 300 Gb/s 7200 rpmOn my particular system where the mb only supports SATAI?My systemMb Asus A8V deluxe S939 AMD 64 3200+1 Gb 400 MHz RAMNVIDIA 6600GT 256M DDR3Win XP Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Agree 100%. The raptor will shave a smig off the first FS program load and the 1st flight's load. After that Vista does some magic and programs/flight reload in < 10 secs. There is No performance difference in game. These 7200s have come a long way, baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The limit on the 74GB Raptor is the platter size. On drives of equal spec, the larger the platter the faster the drive will be. So being the Raptor you ask about is only 74GB but has very low access times (better), and assuming the other drive does in fact have a large cache and it is 500GB, they are nearly matched for performance with the Raptor being a bit faster if 1/3 to 1/2 full and egual in speed if 2/3 full or greater.If its the 74GB Raptor compared to a large platter, large buffer drive the result will be similar with the Raptor loading and running scenery only slightly faster simply due to the platter size and geometry.However, if its the 150, or the 74 or 150 placed in hardware RAID with another or the Velociraptor as a single or hardware RAID array (motherboard RAID is not hardware RAID) there is performance difference and it can not be measured by suggesting the load time in FSX is any way to gauge hard drive performance. and the term "slightly faster" can translate into smoother gameplay. When we think about a "stutter" and the term "a few seconds faster" real-time scenery loads become the target of that greater ability in random access.In this case the small platter Raptor is slightly faster than the 500GB large cache drive.. so the value is based on what the person wants.. if they need more storage space the larger drive in this case would be better suited. If this was the 150 Raptor model or the Veloci there would be no question as to which would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I will briefly touch on this compare of FSX loading I see floating around and put that to rest..Let

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and lets not forget, those running 2GB or less need every advantage they can because not only are the real-time scenery and texture loads going to be a factor, FSX will start paging to the drive once it maxes the PM and that is very easy to do with the applicationa few seconds faster on the page file in that case is quite a boost for themand then there is the argument that memory is cheaper than the drive cost.. depends on the type DDr2 or DDr3, and assuming the user upgrades the memory amount they are right back to the real-time loading of new files as they flyYou guys decideI would be very careful shopping with Kmart advice that says one size fits all and its no different on the bargain price lane. The person who shops based on their needs and coordinated facts regardless of the price being high or low always comes out on top.:-hah In the case of the 74GB Raptor in choice with the 500GB 32m drive, being FSX can easity fill that single drive with addons very quickly, I would either consider the 150 Raptor, the VelociRaptor, or if price dictates the bottom line, then go for the 500GB 32m cache drive. That is based on the the considered performance to cost variables. You will most likely fill the 74GB Raptor near or past the 3/4 mark in which that will affect performance by quite a bit based on simply geometry. If you are not willing to go for the 150GB Rap or faster VRap model then the choice is clear in this case. Please, do not make that decison based on "all it will give you is 7 seconds in FSX load"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick:What about the further complication of 2 Segate 7200rpm drives (32m cache) WITH a hardware RAID card in RAID0?That asked, which card do you prefer?Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png| XP Pro SP3 with FS-GS System Unification | 2 x APC UPS | Coolermaster Stacker 830 SE | Asus P5E-Deluxe (X48) | e8500 @ 4gHz | Tuniq Tower 120 | EVGA 8800GT 512MB | Sony 40" Bravia XBR | 2 x 1 GB Corsair XMS2 | 500GB Seagate Barracuda 32MB SATA2 | Corsair HX620W PS | CH Products Yoke-Pedals-Throttle Quadrant | Aerosoft 747MCP-EFIS-EICAS |

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After that long detailed explanation, I'd still go with the Seagate 7200rpm 32mb cache drive(s) I'm not even sure what all that was about, I think the conclusion is: the initial load time, if measurable, isn't worth the money spent???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Nick:>>What about the further complication of 2 Segate 7200rpm drives>(32m cache) WITH a hardware RAID card in RAID0?>>That asked, which card do you prefer?>For the performance to cost factor you can spend thousands however I have found this cardhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16816116042and this BBU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...Tpk=BBU%203warewhich is needed to enable write-cache on that card and not lose the array in the event of a power outage or crash are a winnerIf you use the card as a FSX only array and it is not the boot drive, as long as you are not installing anything to the card in the event of a power outage a APC is fine and you can skip the BBU purchase however there is still a risk without the BBU.You need a open PCIe 4x slot (card is designed to work in 2nd video card slot too) for that card if I recall the specs correctly and you must set that card up right with a 256K STRIPE on array build and the controller settings as shown...latest drivers and firmware are also a must.. card has system to flash though 3ware download or the browser interface for the cardhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/192342.jpgyou may ask Great Ozzie here in the forums about that card as I do believe he is running it in XP x64good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan,I think the conclusion would be that every little bit helps FSX and one needs to take that into consideration when configuring a system to run it. (ie. do I want to build the best possible performing sytem or do I want to build a solid performing sytem and spare some cost).Each person that runs FSX has their own expectations on level of performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No'the conclusion is anyone who tells you the raptor will only give you 7-10 seconds more in FSX load time and will not help with anything else is incorrectbottom line:FSX uses the same hard drive which is 7 seconds faster to pull in scenery and textures as you fly and deliver other files to the systemIn consideration of the words "SCENERY STUTTER" and "7 SECONDS BETTER"its a no brainer.. The right Raptor will clean that seagates clock based on the thought it loads FSX 7-10 seconds faster, the argument is illogical.Even if the Raptor is only calling files 3 seconds faster its worth it for perfomance.. 3 seconds is a lifetime to a CPU and system where you are looking at trying to hit 20-30FPS!The reality is the faster rotation and faster access spec drive will trump in random access file reads which is what your drive is feeding the system in FSX, random calls. Using HDTach as a way of gauging the speed of a drive in FSX is also FALSE as it uses a sequential access read test, not random read. Therefore HDTach is worthless for drive performance checks in a FSX system. HDTach is designed for showing a audio/video editing system drive performance (huge files called in sequential chunks)With the 74GB the drive is too small for FSX and addons and leave enough free space to be performant in geometric accessHope that clears it all uplater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one of their latest releases as I recall.. I can not vouch for it in use since I have not worked with itverify you can set a 256K STRIPE.. check the 3ware site for the PDF manual and verify it will allow at least that size.. if not, and only 128 it will not perform as well as the first one posted with FSXas for settings they may be similar being a 3Ware however since I have never worked with the card I can not say that for sureI would think the primary settings for performance will be the sameLooking at the specs it appears to be a good cardverify that stripe and if its checks out it appears to be a good buy @ 512MBIt also specs a BBU for it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>With the 74GB the drive is too small for FSX and addons and>leave enough free space to be performant in geometric access>But I had FS9 in mind (+ addons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>With the 74GB the drive is too small for FSX and addons and>>leave enough free space to be performant in geometric access>>>>But I had FS9 in mind (+ addons)Doesn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty thanks for the explanationI'd still go with the 32mb cache seagate, because it is much cheaper per/GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And for me I won't be able to utilise SATAII on the Seagate since my mb only supports SATAI.The drive has backwards compatibility but that does mean you will be buying a drive which will never run its spec.. of course later if you change motherboards that will change and you will have the full ability of that 32m cache driveYou are paying for higher functions and a communication speed your motherboard will not support, therefore, if you do not exceed 50GB your better off on the 74GB Raptor for performance.At the same time the cost difference between the 150 and the 74GB models is only 20 buckshttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136012http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136033... go for the 150GB for 20 bucks more and get --all-- the advantages of the Raptor and the larger platter which will not be hindered by the SATA protocol on your board and the drive can go with you as you migrate to a different system in the future too.Hope that helped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>And for me I won't be able to utilise SATAII on the Seagate>since my mb only supports SATAI.>>The drive has backwards compatibility but that does mean you>will be buying a drive which will never run its spec.. of>course later if you change motherboards that will change and>you will have the full ability of that 32m cache drive>>You are paying for higher functions and a communication speed>your motherboard will not support, therefore, if you do not>exceed 50GB your better off on the 74GB Raptor for>performance.>On the other hand I have read that the higher 300 Gb/s transfer rate is really never used in practice use.>At the same time the cost difference between the 150 and the>74GB models is only 20 bucks>>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136012>>>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822136033>>... go for the 150GB for 20 bucks more and get --all-- the>advantages of the Raptor and the larger platter which will not>be hindered by the SATA protocol on your board and the drive>can go with you as you migrate to a different system in the>future too.>Not where I live. Here the 150 Gb raptor is about 50% higher priced than the 74 Gb raptor. And newegg is no option for me since I live outside USA where newegg won't ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>On the other hand I have read that the higher 300 Gb/s transfer rate is really never used in practice use.The only hard drive which will truly come close to saturating the 3Gb/s communication rate is a SSD driveThe industry has a great way of making things look better than they are.. going from 1.5Gbs to 300Gbs and assuming other components remain the same the difference in true drive speed does not double. In application the difference is not huge.Rotation speed, platter size and lower access always wins over the industry marketing labelYou have all the facts now. If the 150 Raptor is too expensive and you are unsure of how much drive you may need over time then the 32m cache drive is the better choice. Not because it will be faster or cheaper but because it will provide the space and have a significant amount of free space left over and you wont have to worry about it filling up too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"SATA" describes the buss on which the harddrive transfers data. To draw an analogy, it is the racetrack on which the racecars drive. The harddrive is the racecar. The SATA buss is the race track. If (for instance) an car's maximum speed is 110mph, increasing the racetrack's speed capability to from 150 to 375 mph will not help that car go faster . . . but here we are. The Seagate/Asus/Best Buy marketing departments want you to believe it will!Modern 7200RPM HDs can transfer at ~ 110Mbs. The new raptors are running ~ 120MB/s. The SATA I "racetrack" (buss) is rated for "cars" (HDs) with speeds of up to 150Mb/s and SATA II is rated to 375MB/s. SATA I is plenty of buss capacity for any single SATA harddrive today (non-SSD?). Actually ATA 133 is still Plenty of capacity! Using a SATA II buss will not provide a "Not huge" increase in performance. It will provide no performance increase At All. To consider other wise suggests a very basic misunderstanding of this technology. Access times are important too. The 7200 drives can access a file in an average of ~ 8-10ms. If a user defrags to the outer edge with a modern defragged, this can be improved. The Raptor accesses at ~ 5ms. Access time is really the Raptor's Only claim to fame. The question is then, "will better access times trump relatively comparable transfer rates?" If so, it won't be much. File size is getting larger. This means that there are fewer large files to access, rather than more numerous smaller files. This tends to offset the Raptors performance advantage. We're hearing the need to use 256 strips on raids. That means a HD system must be able to efficiently accommodate larger file sizes. FS file size are getting larger and there are fewer of them. This trend will continue to offset the Raptor's advantage in FS(XYZ). There can be little question the Raptors will provide a small performance advantage under some circumstances (like initial program loading). However in-game, it would take scientific instrumentation to discern any performance difference . . . if it existed at all. "Speed costs. How fast do you want to go?" As these things generally do, once again this Raptor v 7200 HD decision boils down to a Dollars vs Sense compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Modern 7200RPM HDs can transfer at ~ 110Mbs. The new raptors>are running ~ 120MB/s. The SATA I "racetrack" (buss) is rated>for "cars" (HDs) with speeds of up to 150Mb/s and SATA II is>rated to 375MB/s. SATA I is plenty of buss capacity for any>single SATA harddrive today (non-SSD?). Actually ATA 133 is>still Plenty of capacity! >>Using a SATA II buss will not provide a "Not huge" increase in>performance. It will provide no performance increase At All.>To consider other wise suggests a very basic misunderstanding>of this technology. >>Access times are important too. The 7200 drives can access a>file in an average of ~ 8-10ms. If a user defrags to the outerThe Seagate 7200.11 has stated averahe accesstime of 4.16 mS. And according to you it doesn't matter that I have SATAI instead of SATAII since the drive performence won't be affected.Question will I notice any significant speed improvement by going from my current 60 Gb + 250 Gb 7200 rpm IDE drives to the 7200.11 SATA drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>To consider other wise suggests a very basic misunderstanding of this technology. I was not addressing you and that was a slick way of trying to suggest something ... nice try If I could I would reach through the internet and smack you for being a naughty little boy he11-bent desperate to try and discredit me.Has not worked yet and you just keep burring yourself every time you type and try another shotYou better go back to Wiki or where ever you get your information because the speed across the buffer on those drives is most certainly increased and if the application takes advantage of write or read cache ops it will in fact allow better performance on a single drive, but not by much. AKA 'not huge'The 3GB/s standard is designed for multi-drive muti I/O support such as RAID systems, otherwise the 3GB/s is useless. Home users who run single drives will see no difference unless the app design in use will take advantage of the write/read buffer.I have been trying to close out topics which I saw needed attention however the forum is yours nowAs I said before, god help themYou may bullchit now without fear of anyone correcting you.=======================================================apologies jfri.. was not my intent to deal with that in your thread however given the fact that someone here saw fit to attempt to use your thread for something that had nothing to do with assisting you, I felt I needed to address it.Good day and good luck to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey SamNext time at least have the decency to Google before you try to bullchit your way into a sly suggestion================================================A SATA 3Gb/s interface on the disc drive can increase system performance when the application takes advantage of the drive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> will I notice any significant speed improvement by going from my current 60 Gb + 250 Gb 7200 rpm IDE drives to the 7200.11 SATA drive?Likely, yes. It all depends on the performance of the 60 and the 250. Their IDE buss interface is not a factor, but it suggests their era. IDE (PATA) topped out at ~ 60Mb/s transfer rates. So, if your IDE drives are of this vintage, snag a Seagate -11 toot sweet. It'll rock your world! Remember that SATA I will provide transfer capaciety up to 150 Mb/s. The -11s run at ~ 110Mb/s. SATA I is plenty of "racetrack" capacity for your HD racecar . . . even for the speediest Raptormobile. These 7200 RPM drives have really come a long way. Did you notice that WD never did go with final 133Mb/s IDE (PATA) buss speed. They stayed with PATA 100 (Mb/s) all the way til the end. There were simply no drives at the time that could use this buss's capacity, so WD never implemented it. However Maxtor did went with the PATA 133 standard, advertising a faster drive. This was a simply and entirely and Blatantly false assertion. This really irked me. These guys were just taking advantage of a lay customer's tendency to believe any higher number will provide better performance than any lower number. We see that kind of disingenuous salesmanship all the time. For instance take 400mhz FSBs, PCIe-v2 and SATA II. These are all examples of buss technology providing capacities for memory interfaces, Vcards and HDs that are completely beyond those device's ability to use. Buyer beware. And larger cache = burst speed advantage = better performance? That's just more marketing nonsense. Let's look at it. At SATA II's maximum transfer rate of 375MB/s (1.5Gb/s), how long will it take to discharge a 32MB cache? About 100ms, but that's one magic 1/10th of a second! However (it's argued) that transfer is continuous. How? That cache has to be reloaded someway. If the drive can only transfer at ~ 100MB/s, it cannot maintain a cache source that is transferring at 375MB/s. After that 1st 1/10 of a second, the cache is depleted. From that point, cache can only provide data at the rate that it can receive data from the HD (or ~ 100MB/s). Cache is just a buffer for "emergencies." Sorry, but I always have to relate back to airplanes. It's like an accumulator in a hydraulic system. If the pressure drops momentarily, the accumulator will maintain system pressure in that momentary interim. They (accumulators and cache) were never designed to provide the pressure source for normal flow. They do not help performance, only allow stable, normal operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites