Old raptors worth using

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's not a fair comparison at all. The 7200.11 drives use 320GB platters.... I'm also willing to bet the access times are significantly better on the seagate, which have nothing to do with cache size yet influence startup and load times pretty much the most.

i have a 7200.11 and its 500gb so how could it use 320gb platters?
 
Sorry, they use 250GB platters...only some 7200.11s used 320GBs...also just for future reference, it's quite common for manufacturers to "trim" platters...for example there are quite a few 320GB platter drives with some of the platter disabled..such as the 500/750GB Samsung F1 and 750GB Hitachi Desktar 7K1000.B. In fact, pretty much every generation of drive does this.

Anyway, my original point was that the seagate has a much higher platter density and that, along with other platter optimizations is where you are seeing the your performance difference, not the cache.
 
I dont know if the temperature is being reported accurately, but my raptors are running at 79°F and 82°F. My 640gb seagate is also running at 82°F.

Using the very highly technical technique for measuring temperatures - putting my hand on the drives, I can also confirm that my Raptor X is the coolest of all the HDs I have in the case. It's not a big difference (they are all very slightly warmer than room temp), but still....
 
Well the raptor X's are actually superceeded by the 640gb WD caviar blacks which are just behind the velociraptors so there is range to debate on which is better as the raptors are better at some aspects whilst the Caviar blacks are faster at others in terms of real world performance I believe the 640gb caviar blacks are 1-3% slower then the velociraptors and once price/gb comes to play its an obvious choice...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom