Final Words

In the days before SSDs, the VelociRaptor was the drive that raised the cost per GB ceiling. These days, the 600GB drive almost seems like a bargain. Have a look:

Cost Comparison of Modern HDDs/SSDs
Drive Capacity Price Cost per Gigabyte
Western Digital VelociRaptor VR200M 600GB $329 $0.548
Western Digital VelociRaptor VR200M 450GB $299 $0.664
Western Digital VelociRaptor VR150M 300GB $199 $0.663
Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB $120 $0.120
Seagate Barracuda XT ST32000641AS 2TB $250 $0.125
Intel X25-M G2 160GB $414 $2.588
Intel X25-M G2 80GB $220 $2.750

Western Digital's pricing picks up where the VR150M left off and drops the cost per gigabyte significantly for the 600GB drive. At $329 vs. $299, I'm not sure there's even a reason to consider the 450GB offering. That extra $30 buys you 150GB at $0.20 per GB. Now obviously compared to a high end 7200 RPM drive, you are paying a price premium for the VelociRaptor. Based on our tests I'd expect to see a 5 - 10% increase in overall system performance compared to a current generation, 7200RPM drive. If you have particularly random workloads, the performance gap can can grow to be something much higher in the 15 - 20% range (or beyond if you're truly I/O bound).

Our AnandTech Bench gaming workload does make the argument that if you're primarily interested in using this drive for games, you might be better served by a larger 3.5" drive. Game installs are pretty big these days and when playing games you're mostly performing sequential reads off the disk, which wastes much of the benefit of the 10K RPM spindle speed. It's only if you're planning on having other apps running in the background that hit the disk while you game that you could benefit from the VelociRaptor.

The rest of the tests make it very clear. As far as hard drives go, you can't beat the random read/write performance of the new VelociRaptor. For applications that absolutely demand to be run on a physical disk, this is your best bet.

The problem is once you take into account solid state storage. The new VelociRaptor boasts a 4KB random write speed of 1.9MB/s. Intel's X25-M G2 is amost 20x faster. The new VelociRaptor averages 178 IOPS in our typical Bench workload, Intel's X25-M can push nearly 800 IOPS in the same test.

While you are getting much more storage for your dollar with the VelociRaptor, a higher performance alternative would be to combine a good SSD with a 1TB drive. Using the SSD for your OS and apps, and the TB drive for all of your music, photos, videos and games. It's this sort of configuration that I use in my personal desktop (except I have two 1TB drives in RAID-1).

If you can't go the SSD route but still need the performance, WD has retaken the crown with the new VelociRaptor. If you can make it work however, you may be happier with an X25-M and a WD Caviar Black instead.

Power Consumption & Noise
Comments Locked

77 Comments

View All Comments

  • Aezay - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link

    The model used in this review is the new WD1002FAEX disk, which is the upgrade to the WD1001FALS model. This new drive is considerably faster, even compared to the 2TB Black (WD2001FASS).
    http://gigglehd.com/zbxe/files/attach/images/89985...
  • Imperceptible - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link

    Not according to this review: http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=870&type=expe...
  • Belard - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link

    Er... either way... that is more up to the user.

    RAID 0 adds several additional points of failure... Considering how fast G2 as it is. G3 with SATA 3.0 would be more exciting thou... :)

    I'd still go with a single drive. That is me.
  • Imperceptible - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link

    Replying to the wrong comment? This has nothing to do with RAID. Just simply mentioning that the WD Black 2TB is the fastest single mechanical drive and it would have been nice if it was used in this review. But in the real world, I'd only ever use it as a storage hdd, with an SSD as the main drive.
  • deputc26 - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link

    I as thinking the same, 2Tb Black is this drives nearest non-SSD competitor.
  • Romulous - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    I concur. The WD2003FYYS is no slouch.
  • vol7ron - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link

    First pass:
    there in while -> there in a while

    Also when typing a comment, if you forget the subject, this is the error message:
    "Account creation was unsuccessful. Please correct the errors and try again."

    I think "account creation" is a little misleading. Perhaps a "Please type in a subject" would be okay.
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link

    I'm a bit confused. If these are using 200GB platters both the 450 and 600GB versions are both 3 platter drives which doesn't really make sense. A 2 platter 400GB model would be a more reasonable step down from the top.
  • vol7ron - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link

    Perhaps the 450GB drives, which as Anand has indicated is using 150GB platters, are really using damaged 200GB platters due to the manufacturing anomalies.

    - just a hypothesis that needs testing.

    vol7ron
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - link

    Where does it indicate that the 450 is using a 150GB platter? The table on the first page lists it as a 200GB. The 150 is the prior generation model.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now