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

  • Per Hansson - Saturday, April 10, 2010 - link

    I agree and would also like to see how a drive like the Cheetah 15k.7 would perform vs this VelociRaptor
  • Den - Monday, April 12, 2010 - link

    I have the (old) 150 GB raptor. What happened to make the 2.5" ones (300 and 600 both) so much noisier than the old 150? 8.5 - 9 dB(A) louder is about three times as loud!
  • bakedalaskan - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link

    Though not a price/performance issue along the lines of this article, I notice the position of the SATA connectors appear to be relocated through some kind of adapter compared to the original design 300GB VelociRaptor/ICEPAK combination. My complaint with the original 300GB drive/ICEPAK is that they don't fit in the drive tray system that I like to use on all my PC's. It appears that the new design would address standard SATA drive tray and hot swap backplane standards.
  • dude117 - Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - link

    would this make sense as a datastore for a ESX4.1 home lab to run around 20 VMs , mostly Win2003/2008, off?

    I would prefer a SSD drive but i am not sure how fast the drive will be dead if the VMs are constantly utilized.
  • Romulous - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    I have configured several vsphere 4 servers running 8 * 300G raptors in raid 10 on a 3ware (now LSI) 9650SE controller. This configuration is very fast. (8 drives in raid 5 takes a fair performance hit though). A single drive would only work if only one operation happened at a time. This configuration would not make a serious server. It all depends on the work load you anticipate. The production servers we run for one type of VM service have 48GB ram and dual quad xeons, plus the 8 raptors in raid 10. They run over 30 VMs. File system space is the real limiting factor without a SAN.
  • GTXRaptor - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    What would really be a mind = blown moment would be a VelociRaptor SSD.
    Fastest SSD on the planet :).

    One can dream.
  • crackedcoms - Thursday, January 12, 2012 - link

    Learn about the latest Xrumer news today its cool and has stuff and ewrwe yeahhh

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now