1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wd Raptor or Samsung F3 as boot disk?

Discussion in 'Storage Drives' started by COYS, 13 Oct 2009.

  1. COYS

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 30 Mar 2007

    Posts: 1,350

    Hi Guys. I needed some more storage space so just bought a Samsung F3 1TB.

    However I'm liking the reviews and considering making it my boot disk instead of my Raptor.

    Does this sound a good idea, in that is it going to be faster at loading up Win 7 than the Raptor?

    Cheers
     
  2. Fahim

    Gangster

    Joined: 22 Jun 2009

    Posts: 135

    Raptors are faster, specially if you have velociraptor. But F3 have very high arial density with bigger cache, so it might be faster than old raptors, but not velociraptor.
     
  3. milkinc13

    Mobster

    Joined: 16 Apr 2006

    Posts: 3,226

    Location: Basingstoke

    only real difference will be seek times which the raptor has. The samsung will have quicker file throughput compaired to the raptor. so i'd say that the F3 will have an advantage
     
  4. Atom

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 8 Jan 2007

    Posts: 1,465

    Location: Manchester

    OS loading is all about small files. Why dont you image your OS and try both? If it was me I would pick the Raptor.
     
  5. Jimbo Mahoney

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 6,287

    I would suspect the Raptor would be faster as an OS drive due to the lower seek time, but sadly you won't know unless you try both :(
     
  6. COYS

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 30 Mar 2007

    Posts: 1,350

    Ok cheers guys. I guess i'll have to try both and see whats what. I dont imagine theres much between them, hence not being totally sure to begin with.

    I did see this comparisson but for some reason despite having the Raptor in some tests they they havent compared it for the OS load times (or Crysis load times) which is a bit annoying.

    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2009/10/06/samsung-spinpoint-f3-1tb-review/1
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2009
  7. DIABLO

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,480

    Location: N.Devon

    I had the same dilema, i have 2 original raptors in RAID0 but i relented and ordered 2 500GB F3's to raid which are coming tomorrow.
     
  8. setter

    Caporegime

    Joined: 14 Dec 2005

    Posts: 28,160

    Location: armoy, n. ireland

    I used to use 2 74gb 16mb cache raptors in raid0, they were certainly fast for the os and game loads, only problem was they were rather loud, eventually swapped to a samsung F1 320 gb as an os drive, prety decent drive as well but more importantly is much quieter.
     
  9. Atom

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 8 Jan 2007

    Posts: 1,465

    Location: Manchester

    I went from a F1 to a VR and it cut 18 seconds off my boot time.
     
  10. Stonedofmoo

    Soldato

    Joined: 24 Oct 2002

    Posts: 6,245

    Location: Portsmouth

    Damn, you must have a lot of stuff loading with your windows!
     
  11. DIABLO

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,480

    Location: N.Devon

    Going to short stroke my 2 F3's when i get them tomorrow to help the boot times.
     
  12. AbsenceJam

    Mobster

    Joined: 2 Nov 2007

    Posts: 4,304

    Don't! Just partition.
     
  13. DIABLO

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,480

    Location: N.Devon

    This is the kind of performance a small windows partition will get if you make sure it's on the outside of the platter. (RAID0 2x500GB) The access time starts dropping off between 50 and 75GB (access was 8.8ms at 75GB partition).
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 16 Oct 2009
  14. khulershaker

    Gangster

    Joined: 2 Jul 2008

    Posts: 377

    i tried the f1's and really the only major difference over the raptors was the noise - maybe in a lab or something it was slower but the silence tipped the bill - even velociraptor is quieter but still annoying. SSD's all the way! I think you'll be that impressed with the samsungs!!!
     
  15. -=Vect0r=-

    Hitman

    Joined: 11 Mar 2008

    Posts: 882

    Location: Earth:\UK\Chelmsford

    Impressive! How do you ensure the data is on the outside of the platter?
     
  16. DIABLO

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,480

    Location: N.Devon

    By creating the partition you want to install windows in first.
     
  17. -=Vect0r=-

    Hitman

    Joined: 11 Mar 2008

    Posts: 882

    Location: Earth:\UK\Chelmsford

    Cheers Diablo and forgive my ignorance, but having created a partition resulting in say C:\ and D:\ drives, how do I know which is the outer platter? :o

    Also, is 50Gb the sweet spot in achieving this effect?
     
  18. DIABLO

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,480

    Location: N.Devon

    The disk management console will tell you the location of the partitions on the disk, left side of the bar is the outer edge right is inner edge.

    Every model of drive is different some lose thoughput as soon as the head starts moving further in some like the F3 hold max performance for a while before the performance drops, on a F3 drive the max size of the partition with 2 drives in raid 0 without access speed drop is soome where between 50-75GB (8,1ms-8.8ms) i did'nt test in the middle, because i am only interested in creating a minimal partition for windows. The partition you could create before increased access delay is half the size with a single drive then 2 with 2 drives in raid0 because in raid0 you're spliting the partition between 2 drives.

    The way i tested what i did was lock the RAID array to the desired size i wanted to simulate a simple partition if i had created just a partition i would'nt have been able to test what i had done because disk benchmark programs i have seen don't take any notice of partitions and read the entire disk.
     
    Last edited: 15 Oct 2009