PDA

View Full Version : 10000rpm vs 7500rpm hd?



MOH_MADMAN
02-16-2007, 05:43 PM
Hello All

Putting together new rig.

ARe there any real benifits to having a faster
10000 rpm hard drive over the 7500s?

Price is pushing me towards the 7500rpm unless there is a very compelling reason to go faster.

Thanks much all.
MAD

MOH_MADMAN
02-16-2007, 05:43 PM
Hello All

Putting together new rig.

ARe there any real benifits to having a faster
10000 rpm hard drive over the 7500s?

Price is pushing me towards the 7500rpm unless there is a very compelling reason to go faster.

Thanks much all.
MAD

VW-IceFire
02-16-2007, 05:46 PM
10000rpm are still something of a premium curiosity. I don't think, at least not in my experience, are they good enough to make up the price/performance difference. I'm very much a fan of the Seagate 7200.9 series (not sure if there are newer ones out now) which are pretty fast for a 7200 and almost completely silent. Now and then you hear a peep out of them...but virtually no real noise.

MOH_MADMAN
02-16-2007, 05:55 PM
Ty for input Icefire.

goofed, meant 7200.

MAD

WTE_Ibis
02-16-2007, 06:25 PM
I have a 10,000 rpm HD and can't see any
difference except it is very noisy when
working hard.
Not worth it IMO.

.

FritzGryphon
02-16-2007, 09:26 PM
I've only heard of these being useful for machines with massive data transfer requirements, like network servers.

MOH_SKID.
02-16-2007, 09:46 PM
S~ MAD!

I have a 10K rpm WD Raptor as my main C: drive. IL-2/FB is installed there too. It certainly makes the OS feel faster. (XP needs all the help it can get!) Mission load times are pretty snappy too. I use 2x 7200rpm drives for other general apps, storage and, of course, backup of C:.

Lots of places have benchmarks on these sort of things. StorageReview.com for one... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S~
Skid

R_Target
02-16-2007, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
10000rpm are still something of a premium curiosity. I don't think, at least not in my experience, are they good enough to make up the price/performance difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's how I feel about them too. My brother runs two 10k Raptors in RAID 0 and it's not as quick as I thought it would be. For a normal 7200k drive, I got more value out a 16MB cache.

PFflyer
02-16-2007, 10:37 PM
I built two identical rigs, one with dual 10k rpm WD raptors on raid0, and one with one 7XXX rpm Seagate, and the one with the Seagate ran and loaded windows just as fast.

Save your cash, the latest sata drives are so good compared to the old IDE stuff there is no reason to do anything fancy anymore really.

Unless you want to run striped raid1 to make sure you do not lose your files, but that is only worth it for servers and companies with important data......

Badsight-
02-16-2007, 10:56 PM
you want the most reliable drive you can buy

hard-drive failures & all the lost data that insues isnt the worst thing to do ith PC's , but it ranks up there

Diablo310th
02-17-2007, 08:14 AM
when I set up my 2x10,000 raptors in a raid 0 I defiantely saw a difference in loadup and game speed. Maybe it was jsut me but it sure seemed to help mine.

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-17-2007, 09:12 AM
Save your money and go with Western Digital Caviar SE 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s series. You will get tons of space and a screaming HD for less money. IMO

S~

heywooood
02-17-2007, 09:12 AM
I run two HD's @ 7200rpm in raid - the option was that or the same config with 10000rpm and the tech said you do get faster performance with a faster HD but the heat and energy usage is not generally worth it.

My rig with two HD's is much cleaner and faster than my ol' one drive rig...I only have XP and the firewall and AVG on the C: drive...everything else is on the other one.

SeaFireLIV
02-17-2007, 09:24 AM
I have a Western Digital 10000rpm drive and a 7200rpm as a backup\download\utilities.

I keep all my programs on the 10000 drive since it`s faster, but have I noticed a difference? I`ve not tested so can`t tell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Matz0r
02-17-2007, 09:57 AM
Go with a single 7200, the latest SATA drives got plenty of throughput and 10k is just too noisy. If you want to mirror more than one disk just use software RAID, the standard consumer RAID cards are just glorified software raids and Windows/Linux OS level software RAID is just as fast and even faster in Linux's case compared to the &lt; 300€ RAID cards. And your motherboard already got more than one ATA channel for sure.

Forget about increasing perfomance using ATA and RAID all together, all ATA disk gets dirt slow as soon as you put some pressure on them with simultaneous I/O operations. It even happends when you put them in a striped volume. Most games are only read intensive and you never run other stuff while playing games. So a single ATA or multiple ATA won't matter much to you as a gamer. If you want some security for your data use a software mirror raid, if you can set up round-robin read on your software raid you might get slightly improved loading times over a single disk but not much.

That's why the pros go with FC/SCSI with lots of disks in RAID1+0 when they want speed and SATA in RAID5 when they just want volume. The first options of course costs alot more than we ever can afford for private use (and makes tons of noise too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)