Gaming Hard Drive(s) - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-05-2006, 12:59 PM   #11 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,010
Default

Not directly, they don't. I am showing them to point out that a 74GB raptor - which is twice as expensive as the 250GB 7.2k - is only 11.2MB/s faster in transfer speeds.

By all means get them if you can't upgrade any other component until then I would not reccomend them.
__________________

__________________

Cisco CCNA, Comptia A+, 1/3 through CCNP
Trifid is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 01:08 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 85
Default

What would you recommend?
__________________

norcal313 is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 01:32 PM   #13 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,010
Default

A standard (but larger) 7200rpm hard drive is 'good enough' if it means that you get better hardware in areas where it matters.
__________________

Cisco CCNA, Comptia A+, 1/3 through CCNP
Trifid is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 03:12 PM   #14 (permalink)
Mod Emeritus
 
b1gapl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 13,044
Default

And the difference in load times, is like only a few seconds?
__________________


3770K | ASUS STRIX GTX 1080 | DDR3-1600 16GB | CORSAIR 650D | CORSAIR HX 850W | CORSAIR H100 | SOUND BLASTER Z | ASROCK EXTREME4 GEN3

b1gapl is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 10:43 PM   #15 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
alexsabree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1,845
Default

... raptors, are for showing off

and for EXTREME enthusiists who dont build a comp for performance, but more to show off and bloat about... even when the couple fps increase costs twice as much

imo of course
alexsabree is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 10:55 PM   #16 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,992
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by alexsabree
well for starters they dont increase your gaming fps, all they do is make the game load faster on the loading screen, and they generate way to much heat
Have you owned one? I dont think you have. Do they make everything load much faster. Yes. I even tested it out.. when I formated the raptor I though heck, I'll put it on the 7200 RPM to see the diffrence. Oh my lanta! Boy was I suprised. Garry's mod took about 8 minutes instead of the normal 4 to rebuild the cache, Loading the OS took longer as well lets not forget those long massive BF2 wait times now shall we? And second what about Heat. My 200GB 7200 RPM runs hotter then my raptor, and my raptor is only at 37 Degrees celcius. Of course it get's hot, but thats why you go get some fans and cool BOTH hard drvies regardless of RPM or cache or physical space so they last longer. Everyone knows that.


Quote:
Originally posted by alexsabree
All u need to look for in a harddrive is space, cache, and make sure its 7500rpm and not 5000
7200 RPM and 5400 RPM, dude, take like 5 seconds to look over your post, it makes you look smarter and isn't that hard.

What about interface? I'd rather have a sata drive as my master and not an IDE.
__________________



May the wind always be at your back and the sun upon your face, and may the winds of destiny carry you aloft to dance with the stars
Lord AnthraX is offline  
Old 10-05-2006, 11:33 PM   #17 (permalink)
Future ex-member
 
lancec2c30's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chehalis, WA
Posts: 4,012
Send a message via MSN to lancec2c30
Default

what apps. use all of a 16mb cache? cause my wd 320 sata/2 has only a 8MB, not a 16.
__________________

XP Pro | Vista Home Premium | Linux Ubuntu 7.10
s939 X2 3800 Toledo @ 2.6ghz | evga 7900gs | 320gig + 80gig wd | 1gb Ram | Abit KN8 SLI
3.1ghz achieved. :cool:
70K F@H member..............still waiting for the "iRACK"

Norcent will not be forgotten.

lancec2c30 is offline  
Old 10-06-2006, 02:05 PM   #18 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
TheOtis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth.
Posts: 1,274
Send a message via AIM to TheOtis
Default

I've noticed a difference in a couple areas. The biggest one being the time it took for my raptor to format. Second being the time it takes windows to load, and third being the time it takes for maps to load. But does that justify paying almost $200 for 74 gigs?

Hardly.

Do I regret it? Kinda. It's performed great and did exactly what I expected. I mean it's a hard drive, you can't expect hard drives to do much considering how limited you are.

But would I buy one again? Probably not.

Recently it's been makeing some noises like its DIEING. But WD has a 5 year warrenty on it, so I may have to send it in.

I'd suggest buying two WD 80 gigs and setting them up in a RAID-0. They're already great hard drives, and only $40-$50 depending on where you look. And I'd bet two 80's in a RAID-0 array would be on par with raptor.
__________________
Back on being mobile - ASUS G551- 15.3" 1080p - Core i7 4710HQ - GTX 860M - 16GB DDR3 1600 - 512GB Samsung 850 Pro - Steam ID: TheOtis
TheOtis is offline  
Old 10-06-2006, 02:13 PM   #19 (permalink)
Ste
Do not Stare at my Avatar
 
Ste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Upon Gleaning Infinity
Posts: 9,577
Send a message via MSN to Ste
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by lancec2c30
what apps. use all of a 16mb cache? cause my wd 320 sata/2 has only a 8MB, not a 16.
A 16MB cache has nothing to do with what software can use it.
Its cache, software will use it reguardless of how big or small it is. because its a Hardware Cache on the HD itself. the harddrive holds data in its cache until the CPU requests it. Just like CPU cache. The Cache is invisible to the Software..

Your Question is like saying Will the Oil in my car be able to use the New Oil Filter. (Yes I KNOW i suck at Examples and similars..)
Ste is offline  
Old 10-06-2006, 02:17 PM   #20 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
TheOtis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth.
Posts: 1,274
Send a message via AIM to TheOtis
Default

Hey ste question for ya buddy.

I've only noticed HD's having no more then 16MB for cache. Do you know the reason for this? Why can't they do 32 or 64?
__________________

__________________
Back on being mobile - ASUS G551- 15.3" 1080p - Core i7 4710HQ - GTX 860M - 16GB DDR3 1600 - 512GB Samsung 850 Pro - Steam ID: TheOtis
TheOtis is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.