Let's get real now

We need to state once again that the press sample drives shipped with early firmware that is about 90% complete according to Western Digital. Their engineering group is working around the clock (we were up together until the wee hours last night) to finalize the firmware before the drives ship to Alienware or into the retail channel.

Western Digital was upfront about the state of the firmware and warned us that results might not represent the final product. We already discussed the firmware problems yesterday. In our case, it appears that besides being firmware challenged our drive might not have been the smartest or most capable of the pack either. We have returned our drive for analysis. In the meantime, our actual application results consist of benchmarks that certainly would expose the sustained transfer rate problems on the outer area of the platters.

Game Level Load

This test centers on the actual loading of a playable level within our game selections. Our application timer begins when the level load process is initiated and ends when the screen is visible.

Game
Application Timing - Level Load Time

Game
Application Timing - Level Load Time

In Company of Heroes, the separation between the mechanical drives is just over a second. Our VelociRaptor is the quickest mechanical drive in this test. In Crysis, we see the VelociRaptor trailing our leaders by just .2 seconds at most. These are objective tests centered on a single level load in each game. Subjectively, the two Raptors and our SSD drive seemed to offer quicker transitions' between levels as we extended the game play length.

Nero Recode

Our encoding test is quite easy - we take our original Office Space DVD and use AnyDVD to copy the full DVD to the hard drive without compression, thus providing an almost exact duplicate of the DVD. We then fire up Nero Recode 2, select our Office Space copy on the hard drive, and perform a shrink operation to allow the entire movie along with extras to fit on a single 4.5GB DVD disc. We leave all options on their defaults except we turn off the advanced analysis option. The scores reported include the full encoding process in seconds, with lower numbers indicating better performance. We delete each image after use.

Video
Application Timing - Nero Recode 2

We had a slight surprise in this test as the original Raptor finishes about two seconds ahead of our star. It was obvious watching the encode process that the VelociRaptor's time stumbled and stalled at the beginning of the test and then the drive made up ground quickly that allowed it to almost catch our previous mechanical champ. The Mtron SSD drive once again flexes its muscles.

WinRAR 3.71

Our WinRAR test measures the time it takes to compress our test folder that contains 444 files, 10 folders, and 602MB of data. While the benchmark is CPU intensive for the compression tests, it still requires a fast storage system to keep pace with the CPU. A drive that offers excellent write performance can make a difference in this benchmark.

WinRAR
Create Archive - WinRAR 3.71

This test relies on the CPU and the burst rate of the storage system. Our VelociRaptor finishes in third this time and trails the Samsung 750GB and WD 640GB offerings. Once again, at the beginning of the test the drive stumbled out of the gate and then finished strong.

Vantage Once Again Time to Wrap It Up
Comments Locked

31 Comments

View All Comments

  • AnnihilatorX - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    I'd think real performance matters more than spec.
    I doubt on a fast spin drive 32MB cache would perform any better than 16MB cache, looking at the burst transfer rate of 110MB/s.
  • rudy - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    What about the fact you pay 300$ for it? For that I would say 32mb should be given if it does not hurt performance.
  • GhandiInstinct - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    rudy,

    my logic exactly!
  • Razzbut - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    My question is - will it be quicker than 2x decent SATA IIs running in RAID 0?
    Focus here is price per performance of course, and capacity to boot!
  • AaronV - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link

    Exactly! I would also like to see this compared to MTRON's 3000 series of SSDs (the cheapest of which can be found for $369).
  • Hulk - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    Once the bugs get worked out of this one it looks like it will be a tremendous performer.

    And I have a feeling WDC knows that IT will be the drive that future SS drives will be compared so this will make it tougher for SS drives to look good in such comparisions. WDC is smart to push this technology now even though at this point SS drives aren't really viable competition. The storm is coming and they are not sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
  • bobsonthegreat - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    Surely it's only the real-world stuff that matters isn't it? Is this drive really that big a leap forward because you can load a game level half a second quicker? I'm not being pedantic, I'm just wondering when we'll see real gains in HDD performance. I always thought SSD drives would change the world but they're not really that much faster are they? Not REALLY.
  • Ryan Norton - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    I'm not happy to read that removing the Icepak hoopdyhoo voids your warranty. I use elastic suspension for the HDs in my Lian Li case so 2.5" form factor drives are actually better for me, and I would definitely consider getting one of these to replace my single 74GB Raptor if I could get one of the enterprise versions (or a retail one where I could remove the stupid "heat sink" without voiding a warranty).
  • OldWorlder - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    Just take any ordinaray 1TB Drive and store data on disk duplicated redundantly with 180 degree distance. Would result in 500GB with super-fast access. I would only need < 100GB that are really fast, so do it only with the outermost 200GB Area.

    Maybe add bigger write-cache or small flash backup for tags of sectors that are not yet duplicated from the last write.

    Please, manufacturers, please!
  • retrospooty - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link

    Or you could just partition your current drive and not use the secondary partition... Perf increase is monimal, not huge.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now