bit-tech.net

Western Digital VelociRaptor 600GB Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 31

Reply
bulldogjeff 23rd August 2010, 11:15 Quote
It seems, as good as it is, it's landed in the middle of nowhere, in terms of performance/price ratio, which makes it a bit of an odd ball. I think for people needing to access large files it'll be a winner, where a SSD wont be large enough.
Cyberpower-UK 23rd August 2010, 11:33 Quote
It sits on a delicate niche where both capacity and performance are required and you can't justifythe cost of SSDs.
Kovoet 23rd August 2010, 11:50 Quote
Think I might get one because of the size capacity of it.
Omnituens 23rd August 2010, 11:54 Quote
Thinking of getting one to replace my 300GB one, and putting that into a smaller LAN rig (hauling my 840 classic around is breaking my spine more than a Heavy after a sandvich)
[PUNK] crompers 23rd August 2010, 12:40 Quote
get a 128/256GB SSD and keep the old 300GB?

i could see the point, if it was cheaper and it would have to be a lot cheaper lets face it. at that price point they're putting a lot of people out of the market.
qupada 23rd August 2010, 12:53 Quote
After recent experiences I wouldn't touch these with a barge pole. I really, really hope they've done something about the reliability because over a 5 month run I was forced to RMA fourteen of the 300GB model (record installation to failure time 4 days 7 hours). This made for some pretty scary data safety moments, even in a RAID-6 array. "Enterprise storage" in such big letters on the label feels like some kind of cruel joke.
Did I just get a bad batch? Anyones guess, but have not had a single blip from the array in 6 months after switching to 1000GB Seagate ES.2 disks (at 15% of the per gigabyte price).

The 300GB model also only had 2 platters, cramming another one in there has not I imagine done wonders for thermal output. The design of the heatsink on these and the 300GB 'GLFS' model doesn't seem to have the heatsink fins optimally directed for the direction of airflow in most cases either.

Bring on the 600GB Intel SSDs the recently leaked roadmap is promising. Just don't eat anything when picking up the price list, I imagine choking is likely to occur :)
Omnituens 23rd August 2010, 12:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK] crompers
get a 128/256GB SSD and keep the old 300GB?

Can't do that - my steam directory + games are pushing the limits of my 300GB velociraptor, which is the main reason for the possible upgrade.
stonedsurd 23rd August 2010, 13:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
Clever girl?

Jurassic Park ;)

In the graphs, shouldn't it be "incompressible" instead of "uncompressable"?

Shame that the new VRs just aren't competitive anymore. 5x the price per GB is too much for the few percentage points of performance.
Valver 23rd August 2010, 13:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnituens

Can't do that - my steam directory + games are pushing the limits of my 300GB velociraptor, which is the main reason for the possible upgrade.

You can use Junction points to split your Steam games across multiple disks if you like (google them, theyre like shortcuts, only for directories) Keep the commonly used new games on th SSD and have the older stuff on a second hard disk. Use: http://www.rekenwonder.com/linkmagic.htm
Omnituens 23rd August 2010, 13:40 Quote
I am quite aware of junction points. I rather have everything on one drive for ease of backing up.

Boot Drive
Games Drive
Mass Storage 1, 2, 3 etc
BlackMage23 23rd August 2010, 13:51 Quote
They Really need to be half the price to have any real chance of success.
£200 is in the realms of cheap SSD's which may not have much space but will give better performance.
CharlO 23rd August 2010, 14:09 Quote
Why they didn't include the window? It was awesome tought pointless :P
[USRF]Obiwan 23rd August 2010, 14:10 Quote
Hmmmmm 210 for 2x2TB or 600GB....

Not a hard decision!
LightningPete 23rd August 2010, 14:31 Quote
Think WD are living in a time freeze, or some sort of wormhole, where time cant be kept any further than 2003. Its 2010, and were hitting the road running now, especially in financially difficult times. This satisfies nothing that the general consumer or business enterprise markets want. So this is really a flop with an upgrade to what the hell are you doing here slapped on its side.
sheninat0r 23rd August 2010, 17:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlO
Why they didn't include the window? It was awesome tought pointless :P

I thought the windowed Raptor X models ran slower and louder than their non-windowed brothers? Eh, maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but the difference couldn't have been big. I agree that re-adding the window would have made this drive more attractive to eye candy enthusiasts, to whom the plain black rectangles of SSDs must look like poo.
SuicideNeil 23rd August 2010, 17:13 Quote
Interesting observation about the F3s though- so many people sing their praises yet the Caviar Blacks seem to perform better in most instances. Anyone wanna suggest the best brand of ordinary HDDs?

Cant imagine Im the only person that has noticed with each month's buyers guide that '500GB HDD' is suggested, with no recommendation as to which brands exactly... :/
sear 23rd August 2010, 17:23 Quote
This is quite surprising. I own a WD Caviar Black 2 TB and at the time of its release it was actually faster than the Raptors of the time. It's still a ludicrously fast hard disk, it boots Windows 7 in something like 30 seconds. I'm kind of amazed a mechanical drive is capable of going so quickly.
Bloody_Pete 23rd August 2010, 17:42 Quote
Because the F3 is £45 now, so just get 4 and put them in RAID0...
kingjohn 23rd August 2010, 18:16 Quote
whats more important a gpu that is able to play the games at reasonable res and high setting or a hard drive that is seconds faster than the others . its goood that western is pushing tech hardware to the point of its ability but at those £s it isnt for me .
RonanH 23rd August 2010, 18:32 Quote
What I'd like to see is the performance of a couple of these in Raid 0... not that I'd buy one, prefer a small SSD for OS/apps and large slow HDD for data.
xela333 23rd August 2010, 19:15 Quote
Personally I think you'd be mad to buy one. I work in a PC shop and if a customer approches wanting the velociraptor I give them a slap and they leave with an SSD and 1TB drive saving them money in the process!
ssj12 23rd August 2010, 20:06 Quote
Are you guys sure that HDD wasnt dropped or damaged in anyway? I have this exact HDD and it isn't at all half as noisy as you put it at full load or boot. It's much quieter then any other HDD I own. My fans are loader then the HDD.
Jasio 23rd August 2010, 21:14 Quote
For the same price you can now pick-up 15,000RPM 300GB SATA/SAS 6GBps enterprise drives, or spend the extra $100 and get a 600GB unit; those units also have 64MB buffers to help them run along smoothly; better quality control (MTTF). Both Seagate Cheetah's and Hitachi Ultrastar's seem to be almost a better alternative.

So... Western Digital has essentially done nothing to make this drive anymore/less appealing than it always has been. Did they bump performance? Yes - but I can just RAID0 F3's via the onboard ICH10R on an X58 motherboard and be no slower at a lower cost.

Ultimately, you can pickup a small SSD for boot/primary game applications and stick to Caviars/F3's/Barracuda's for all your major storage needs.
LordPyrinc 23rd August 2010, 23:59 Quote
I've been running two 150GB VelociRaptors in RAID 0 since last December and I've had no problems thus far. They were, and still are pricey compared to the 7200 rpm drives, but still significantly cheaper than the SSD drives.
logan'srun 24th August 2010, 07:04 Quote
and can you hear anything over that din?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums

More About...