Do Raptors really make a difference?

**Incinerate_IV** · February 05, 2007, 05:52 PM

Well I'm assembling my new computer, and I'm trying to decide if I should go for a WD Raptor or not. I know some of you have Raptors, so are they really that good? I mean 10000 RPM is only a little faster than 7500RPM. :hmmm:

**belson** · February 05, 2007, 06:16 PM

I got a huge performance boost from upgrading, especially in Rome Total War and WOW loads and Windows boot time, but I also went from a PATA to my SATA Raptor at the same time. For some concrete stats, you should really check out comparisons like these: http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html and http://www23.tomshardware.com/storag...2=280&chart=34.

I know, sometimes those don't tell you much, but the bottom line is, the raptor is definitely faster. Is it fast enough to justify the extra 100+ American dollars? That really depends on your need for the best, and/or your wallet. But I was very happy I took the plunge, and I recommend it.

**invictus** · February 05, 2007, 07:50 PM

Well i just recently bought a raptor drive, 150gb to be exact (in case size matters). In all honesty, it makes a huge difference, bf2142 maps load in about 5-10 seconds. I am not even exaggerating. I however would only put online games on it, as with single player games 15 seconds more wont make that much of a diff. -Leon

**Doono** · February 06, 2007, 11:24 AM

Seems like a waste of money to me, i don't think they give any performance bonuses appart from faster loading times. Plus they have a very small capacity for the price.

**Hadrian** · February 06, 2007, 04:07 PM

I have a 150GB Raptor X and I also think it's worth it Incinerate. (I know, your thinkin, "What else would Hadrian say...") My Hard Drive before was a WD 250GB Caviar and the Raptor is definately faster, reducing all my load and search times.
Remember, the Raptor X's are the fastest Raptors solo, but the standard Raptor is faster in raid arrays so if you may go raid in the future, just get the standard model, if not, the windowed "X" version is the fastest. I got mine for 199.00$ at Newegg....

**King Edward I** · February 06, 2007, 04:28 PM

I heard the Raptor X is a standard raptor with a flashy case....

**belson** · February 06, 2007, 04:45 PM

The Raptor and the Raptor X were each supposed to be faster than the other for servers and desktops, respectively, but the difference between them is a inch compared to a mile (or a centimeter to a kilometer for you metric folks, dang it I wish America were metric, but thats for another thread). Raptor X may be a tiny tiny bit faster, but not fast enough to warrant the extra price and the added noise from that little window.

**Hadrian** · February 06, 2007, 08:25 PM

The noise (what noise?) is negligable, as is the window (I can't even see it in my case!) but according to all my research, and I did exstensively research the Raptor before I purchased one, the standard Raptor is more suited to raid arrays whereas the X version is the faster of the two solo. I have to take the tech sites word on it as I don't personally have any expertise on the individual disk reading designs of the two HD....

**belson** · February 07, 2007, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Hadrian

The noise (what noise?) is negligable, as is the window (I can't even see it in my case!) but according to all my research, and I did exstensively research the Raptor before I purchased one, the standard Raptor is more suited to raid arrays whereas the X version is the faster of the two solo. I have to take the tech sites word on it as I don't personally have any expertise on the individual disk reading designs of the two HD....

As for the noise difference, I can't find the original review that I read that said the Raptor X was louder. But here is the official Western Digital Raptor's page that lists the noise as Idle Mode - 29 dBA(average), Seek Mode - 36 dBA (average) and here is Western Digital Raptor X's page that lists the noise as Idle Mode - 39 dBA(average), Seek Mode - 46 dBA (average). Now, not everyone will be able to tell the difference between the noise levels. You sure don't seem to have a problem with it.

My point was just that it's something to consider, depends on the person.

As to the performance, I have heard something similar to what you said. That the origional Raptor is for raids, and the X is for desktops, but in that same article it also said that they could find no data in their tests to back this up. Once again, I can't find my original source, but I do have some other sources below. That the drives performed almost the same. Every single stat on the pages linked above is the same, which means that hardware is the same. These guys reiterate that:

- "The Raptor X shares the WD1500's updated internals, and apart from the better view, it's identical to its enterprise-class counterpart." -The Tech Report
- "Both drives share the same firmware and hardware." -Extreme Tech
- "There is a strong argument against the Raptor-X: Why do you need a clear cover, if you are not going to be able to look at it after installing the drive? If it's the performance of this new drive you want and not the fancy cover, you may go for the regular WD1500AD Raptor (without the X) and even save $50." -Toms Hardware

But to be honest, the only concrete performance data that compares the two is found at the same link I put above to Storage Review. On this page, it says the X is a little faster in World of Warcraft and Farcry (by like 5 - 20 points, whatever that means) and the regular Raptor is a little faster in Sims 2 and most of the other tests. So there you go, the X might be a tiny bit faster in gaming, but I can't know for sure either. :hmmm:

P.S. Sorry this is so long, I didn't mean it to be

**Incinerate_IV** · February 07, 2007, 06:52 PM

Thanks for the advice, if I got enough money then I'll definitely look into getting a Raptor. It all depends on how much I can sell the computer I have now.