Which harddrive is fastest on my system

[jfri 42]

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

[ryanbatc 12,813]

No real difference, get the 32mb cached seagates and you'll be good to go:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822148301The same Raptor drive (if they made a 500GB, which they don't), would be at least 4 times more than that 32mb Seagate drive. And you won't even notice the difference.

[Guest D17S]

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.

[Guest Nick_N]

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.

[Guest Nick_N]

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

[Guest Nick_N]

...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"

[cavaricooper 2,613]

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 |

[ryanbatc 12,813]

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???

[Guest Nick_N]

>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

[sargeski 16]

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.

[Guest Nick_N]

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

[Guest simjunkie]

Nick,If I may butt in;Will this card work as well?3WARE 4 PORT PCIe SATA/SAS HARDWARE RAID CONTROLLER CARD - 9690SA-4I-KIThttp://shop2.frys.com/product/5700492?site...CH:MAIN_RSLT_PGAnd if so, would one use the same settings?-J

[Guest Nick_N]

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..

[jfri 42]

>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)

[Guest Nick_N]

>>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