Is this Hard Drive a good deal? Are they noisy?

 

I am also considering this one.

Is this Hard Drive a good deal? Are they noisy?

 

I am also considering this one.

 

The velociraptors are very good hard drives, but don't hold much capacity-wise. So it depends what you're after really. If you transfer alot of files, but only in small amounts, go for the veloc, if not and you're after something which can store over 10x more but it'll read slower, go for the latter. Whichever suits your needs, but there's nothing wrong with either hard drive.

If you're after the drive for the speed then go for a lower capacity SSD as the seek and read (and probably write) speeds will be better.

I would get the veloci and use it as a main boot drive and application drive. You can get a 2TB drive for storage.

I would get the veloci and use it as a main boot drive and application drive. You can get a 2TB drive for storage.

 

SSD kill velociraptors as boot drives. Get an SSD for boot drive, then other regular drives for storage.

I would get the veloci and use it as a main boot drive and application drive. You can get a 2TB drive for storage.

I would disagree, get a SSD instead of a mechanical HDD. They are a tad more expensive, but if that extra ~3000RPM really matters, why not go the whole way and get a SSD.

How can the Maximum External Data Transfer Rate: 300 MBps be the same for both drives? Does that mean that they are both the same speed? Does SSD have a shorter life span then HDD?

How can the “Maximum External Data Transfer Rate: 300 MBps” be the same for both drives? Does that mean that they are both the same speed? Does SSD have a shorter life span then HDD?

 

SSDs are far more reliable.

How can the “Maximum External Data Transfer Rate: 300 MBps” be the same for both drives? Does that mean that they are both the same speed? Does SSD have a shorter life span then HDD?

 

I have no idea where that stat came from, but I would just ignore it. Neither of those hdds will get anywhere near that rate.

 

Technically SSDs do have a shorter lifespan data wise, but there are no moving parts that generally are the problem with HDDs so they will probably last longer. Early SSDs you might have had a problem with that but still probably not for most users.

 

EDIT: What are you buying this drive for? What's your computer usage like also? There's no contest you should have an SSD for a boot drive, but depending on what else you do it really changes what other sort of drive(s) you would be best with.

If it's a computer you won't move, the HDD will last longer, but if you tend to move the computer the SSD will last longer. But anyway, either will do for a very long time, maybe longer than the length of time you're going to use it.

Yeah, expanding on what indy500fan said.

 

You should really have a think if you really need a 10k RPM HDD/SSD before buying one seeing as they're quite expensive; a normal ~7000 RPM drive does most people very nicely (I know my HDD boots windows XP up really quite quickly).

If it's giving you the $79.99 offer for a velociraptor, then that is a mega deal for a superfast HD

 

The "300 MBps external transfer rate" is the SATA 2 / SATA-300 transfer rate, the speed at which any data already in the drive buffer can be fed through the interface, and faster than current drives can actually retrieve data fraom the media.

 

SATA 3 is doubling this rate, the interface capable of transferring at 600 Megabytes (6 Gigabits) per second, though in practice, there is not currently much to be gained.

NB. SATA 3 motherboard interfaces are backward compatible with SATA 2 or SATA 1 devices. Going the other way, where the device supports higher speed than the motherboard interface, may require an option select on the device for some interfaces which do not correctly negotiate speed.

 

One other thing, many good current drives can give similar transfer and seek rates to the Velociraptor, if partitioned down (aka a "cut drive"), though losing in rotational latency to the 10,000 rpm drive.

For instance, a "Caviar Black" partitioned down to about 1/4 for the "busy" partition, and the remaining space can still be partitioned and used for dumping less speed sensitive stuff into.

 

If you can manage with a smaller main partition though, SSD is the way to go.

If you only have $80 to spend, get that for the OS and games. If you can afford more, get a SSD.

 

Data transfer rate isn't the issue for speed in gaming, it's how fast you can access the data you need, and faster drives can do that better. SSDs of course are even faster, albeit Pricier.

I think I will wait and get a SSD when one goes on sale.