Wondering if this drive would be better than going SSD? Found this comparison from (Behemoth777) Velociraptor 600gb price/gb = $.46, Intel ssd 80gb price/gb = $2.75. You can find it here Newegg.com.

No. Its performance is nowhere near that of SSDs and it is priced significantly higher than other mechanical drives while offering less space.

No. Its performance is nowhere near that of SSDs and it is priced significantly higher than other mechanical drives while offering less space.

But the Velociraptor is also is significantly faster than other drives, by a huge amount! (Except, of course, SSDs.) The question remains: If you have many GBy of scenery and add-ons, and for the same money spent on disk storage, what is your optimal disk strategy, i.e. what relative sizes and numbers of SSDs vs. Velociraptors vs. regular HDDs to purchase.For example, it is a no-brainer that the OS and FSX and key utilties should go on SSDs (perhaps each on their own drive), while photo-real textures and elevation maps could go on Velociraptors, with remaining storage provided by regular HDDs.In hardware design, the price/performance envelope (and price is always part of the equation) is pushed most via finely-tuned pyramidal design, with the most expensive and performant hardware in small quantities at the top vs. large quantities of slower, cheaper and less power-hungry hardware at the bottom. Witness PC's current pyramid of performance, from top to bottom: CPU registers, L1 cache, L2 cache, RAM, SSDs, Velociraptors, HDDs, DVDs, Tape.So go for a mix of drives: 2 smaller SSDs for Windows and FS each (2 smaller drives offer twice the bandwidth of a single larger drive), one Velociraptor for scenery (perhaps the 300 GBy) and a regular performance 1 TBy for all else.Cheers,- jahman.

Thanks for all the advice! :(

Hi Transfer rate is higher than regular HDD , It suitable for huge file in movie editor project or something. but don't forget access time because FSX texture files is smaller but Large amount .and SSD no need to defrag , no need to keep minimum 35% free space to improve performance ( credit NickN ) , That's mean you can use about 400 GB space .cheer.

Velociraptors are not "significantly faster than other drives, by a huge amount". Minimum read/write speeds are increased up to 50% over good 7200 RPM drives, but average and maximum speeds are increased by only 10-20%. Latency/access times are decreased by about 40% on average. SSDs offer huge improvements in all these categories, orders of magnitude in the case of access times.

Velociraptors are not "significantly faster than other drives, by a huge amount". Minimum read/write speeds are increased up to 50% over good 7200 RPM drives, but average and maximum speeds are increased by only 10-20%. Latency/access times are decreased by about 40% on average. SSDs offer huge improvements in all these categories, orders of magnitude in the case of access times.

Exactly! "Minimum read/write speeds are increased up to 50% over good 7200 RPM drives" is what I call a HUGE increase in performace: If a new generation of hardware increases performance by 10% every 2 years (and I am being most generous here for HDDs), then 50% is 3 generations i.e. 6 years ahead. Ditto for access times. As for maximum speeds: Nobody cares! (Unless you are copying large amounts of files form one place to another, or recording audio/video, wich is not anything you do in FSX anyway.)Of course if under the label of "FSX Performance" you include start-up times, then yes, an SSD will beat any HDD hands down by a factor of 3x. But you will still get better FPS stuffing your scenery onto a Velociraptor and using the cash you save to get a faster CPU.Cheers,- jahman.

Minimum speeds are nice, but again, MUCH slower than SSDs which are over twice as fast here. SSDs minimum speeds are basically their average and maximum speeds as well. The limitation of SSDs are their controllers and the algorithms which they use to transfer data. Mechanically hard drives have a physical limitation which cannot be overcome by mere spindle speed or areal density alone. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for big, fast, mechanical drives for storing data, but when it comes to latency and throughput SSDs are the only real game in town. As for maximum speeds being irrelevant, that's all I do with my PCs anymore, transfer large amounts of data. Disk throughput has no relevance to game performance anyway, other than load times. If your game benefits from a faster drive, you need more RAM.