7,200 vs 10,000 RPM HDs... is it worth it?

[Max]

I've done some Googling and come to the conclusion that the 10,000 RPM hard drives are worth the extra dough, but I though I'd get some feedback here before I decide anything... what do you guys think/know about them?

[MrMxyzptlk]

NOT worth it....

[Nassor]

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/640-GB-Western-Digital-WD6400AAKS-Caviar-Blue-SATA-300-7200-rpm-16MB-Cache-89-ms

get one of these instead - they are almost as fast as a raptor on their own, and close to a velociraptor in RAID 0 if my memory serves me right

[ati.radeon]

If I were in your position, I would just get the 7,200, it's good enough, but if it's not a huge difference in dough, you might consider it.

[AR~Archon]

^ What Mxy said.  There are uses for the faster RPM drives, but I would guess that in your case the additional cost probably outweighs the benefit.

[MrMxyzptlk]

^ What Mxy said.  There are uses for the faster RPM drives, but I would guess that in your case the additional cost probably outweighs the benefit.

While the gap in $$ has closed somewhat, the gap in "mean time between failure" has NOT closed AT ALL over the past 5+ years.... 

'Get my drift??

The fact is: you can do better than the 10kRPM by going RAID 0*, and then you can beat ALL of the above by going RAID 5, which gets you speed AND reliability....

* But BEWARE! I did this once, tossing "reliability" worries to the wind, and then had one of the two drives crash, leaving the data IRRECOVERABLE!

[BFM_Hydra]

Going RAID 5 is a little over the top unless you're doing what my dad does and is making sure the power station (and therefore Australia's power supply and Japan's coal supply) doesn't fall to pieces through a HDD failure

[MrMxyzptlk]

Going RAID 5 is a little over the top unless you're doing what my dad does and is making sure the power station (and therefore Australia's power supply and Japan's coal supply) doesn't fall to pieces through a HDD failure

I had my machine on a UPS and I still lost a drive as a result of a power outage!?!? (I'm STILL trying to figure THAT ONE out!!)

ONE drive dieing in RAID 5 isn't a problem, but like I said: I was going for the speed boost of RAID 0, so the loss of one drive was ... fatal. 

Ya, RAID 5 a lot more expensive and complicated than just getting the 10,000 RPM drive, too, but then ... backups are done automatically! 

So, in summary, speed-wise:

7,000 RPM slower than 10,000 RPM slower than RAID 0 (eq. 14,000 RPM)

Hence if you want the best speed for the buck, you want RAID 0. (But be sure to do regular backups! - As you'd want to do in any event....  )

Oh, and you'll want to 1) do a substantial BURN-IN TEST (using the manufacturer's utility) for AT LEAST 48 hours before formatting and loading onto ANY drive, esp. a "bleeding edge" one!, and 2) DEFRAG OFTEN (like weekly!)

[Max]

I went ahead and got a VelociRaptor (300GB) because I had some coupons for Bestbuy, so I got it for $159, which isn't too terribly bad I guess... though I am still taking a gamble here.

It's pretty nice so far. Halo installed in 8 seconds (installed from HD though) and my reboot time is cut in half if not even more!

[Taipan™]

And then SSD's come into the equation when prices drop.

In the end a velociraptor is better performance then a normal 7500. Also you can RAID0 a 10,000 as well (but for that price investing in SSD would be cheaper). It depends on what your doing, if your just gaming then your not going to get much performance. If your video encoding tanky files ETC then you will get better performance.

Only benefit you will get if your just playing games like Halo and COD4 is a slightly increased windows start up time.