backtop


Print 11 comment(s) - last by suryad.. on May 27 at 3:11 PM


More cache for WD Raptor

Western Digital's line of enterprise class hard drives have been favorites of enthusiasts since the first 36GB model was introduced and it still takes the crown in performance in both standalone and RAID configurations.

Western Digital silently updated two of its Raptor series drives: the 36GB WD360ADFD and 74GB WD740ADFD 10,000RPM models have been blessed with doubled buffers to 16MB each. The performance specifications have improved over the 8MB cache models along with a slight increase in power consumption. The new models also add Native Command Queuing to the list of features, a change from the older Tagged Command Queuing method.

Among the performance updates are increases in 'Buffer To Disk' sustained transfer rates of 84MB/sec up from the previous models' 72MB/sec as well as lower overall average seek times. The updated 36GB and 74GB Raptor models are also 3 dBA quieter in the idle state.  However, both drives still carry a SATA 1.5Gbps throughput rating.

These updated models are not shipping yet, but retails tell us the drives should appear within the next few days.  Interestingly enough, the new models come just hours after Western Digital cleared up its customer loyalty program with DailyTech


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Sandersann on 5/27/2006 12:18:49 AM , Rating: 1
With the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB out now, it is more and more difficult to justify buying a WD Raptor especially since it gives you almost the same performance alone or in RAID array and is much cheaper per GB

I just wish I could justify buying a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB




By poohbear on 5/27/2006 1:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
a single 7200.10 performs on par w/ a single raptor? that's news to me, where'd u read that?


By Sandersann on 5/27/2006 2:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
Read the review and benchmarks for the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB on Anandtech


By AnnihilatorX on 5/27/2006 4:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
Not that it's just in throughput not access time


By Griswold on 5/27/2006 10:02:55 AM , Rating: 3
Humbug. Access time is where its at for some people. You cant make up the advantage of 10k RPM with higher density platters nor with RAID0 for that matter.

HDDs like these still have their purpose. I'm very much interested in one of the new 36GB raptors if its not as loud as the original 36GB one.


By retrospooty on 5/27/2006 1:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
I read that article. You should read it again. It does not beat the Raptor, not at all. Its fairly close, but its a 750G Hard drive, larger is generally faster.


By maxusa on 5/27/2006 4:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
I have no idea how you can compare the capacity-oriented Seagate vs. enthusiast/enterprise-oriented Raptor. The capacities, prices, and purpose are too much apart. The Raptor is a king of desktop for O/S, apps, and games. Also, the Raptor is great for I/O-intensive tasks in light duty servers. The Seagate is awesome for content creation/streaming (desktop) and colossal storage (server) purposes where I/O comes second to capacity and sequential performance.

Most likely, most PC manufacturers won't put a $500 drive as primary: too expensive. For the desktop, this will be the 2nd drive and upgraders drive for a while. For the server, this can be a great unit for multi-terabyte arrays in low-end storage solutions.


TCQ v. NCQ?
By Sahrin on 5/27/2006 2:07:07 AM , Rating: 2
I was under the impression that all things being equal, TCQ was preferrable to NCQ as TCQ allows for "interrupt requests" to be inssued in the Hard Drive Request Queue, while NCQ does not (essentially that NCQ only takes into account reducing seek time based on disk position, whereas TCQ focuses on reducing user wait time by reording the request Queue to reduce/hide HDD loads/reads).




RE: TCQ v. NCQ?
By Samus on 5/27/2006 8:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
TCQ is better, but nobody wanted to support it. NCQ actually hurts performance in many scenerio's, much like Intel's hyperthreading. the overhead involved robs precious controller processing cycles, hurting performance. so much time is spent designing a 'path' for the actuator to travel that it might as well just gone a random route anyway.

TCQ has just that technology to prevent this type of situation: interrupt requests.


Of course it all depends...
By RyanHirst on 5/27/2006 3:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
...on the reason you're looking at a Raptor. There are a lot of scenarios where there is no substitute for more rotational speed. If your limiting factor is latency, the Seagate results aren't significant enough competition. That may seem like a minor detail. However, if you're considering paying 4x as much per GB for a Raptor, the Seagate results are not necessarily going to change your mind.




Impressive
By suryad on 5/27/2006 3:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Very nice. I would still get the 300 gig SCS 15k rpm drives if I wanted high speed. They are going to be very expensive though. I think WD needs to launch some high capacity raptors now.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki