WD VelociRaptor 300GB Vs WD Caviar Black 500GB RAID 0

[abajbeir]

I want to buy a hard disk for my system

Motherboard: MSI P45 Platinum (MS-7512) (2 PCI, 2 PCI-E x1, 2 PCI-E x16, 4 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Gigabit LAN, IEEE-1394).
CPU: Quad Core Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650, 3000 MHz (9 x 333).
RAM: OCZ DDR2 PC2-6400 8GB Platinum Quad Kit.
H.D: I have four hard disk from WDC Green 3*1 Tera SATA and one 500 GB SATA Green for the system.
GPU: MSI Radeon HD 4870X2, R4870X2-T2D2G-OC.
Display: View Sonic VX2255wm-2 [22" LCD] (QK9074330194).
PSU: Corsair HX1000W.


So, which one is better:
One WD VelociRaptor 300GB.
OR,
Two WD Caviar Black 500GB on RAID 0.

And if you have any better idea kindly inform me.

 

[cjl]

The Velociraptor will be a bit faster on things like boot time and application loading (for the most part), and the RAID will be a bit faster on things like file copy speed and time to load and save large documents.

 

[abajbeir]

I use my PC for gaming and for virtual software. And I care for the performance/Price.

 

[hell_storm2004]

Go for the larger disk size any day. In the end, that's all that matters. All the HDD seek time and all are hardly noticeable in the real life!

 

[cjl]

Hell_storm:

Ever used a velociraptor? How about an SSD?

Seek time is definitely noticeable.

 

[hell_storm2004]

No. But i have black, blue and Barracudas. Its hardly noticeable.
The write seek time of 7200.12 is around 9ms and the seek time of Blue is around 8.5ms. That 0.5ms is something which you can ignore!
Velociraptors have a seek time of around 4.5ms. Even then 4ms is hardly something a human being can feel! I agree that when, when when it all adds up it may matter. But in the OP's case, and extra 200GB is what counts.

 

[MOS]

but as you know he asked about the performance not the size as he don't care about the space he want a performance/Price rate.
I think 2 WD black on raid 0 will be good for the money and performance.

 

[meodowla]

Two WD Caviar Black 500GB on RAID 0 would be far better than One WD VelociRaptor 300GB.

 

[bobmitch]

I have two Velociraptors in RAID 0...the access time is just a hair over 7ms, which IS noticable...However, with that said...if you are talking ONE Velociraptor vs Two WD Caviar Blacks...I would recommend TWO WD 640 GB Caviar Blacks. They are slightly more expensive...and have TWO 320 GB platters. The 640's will smoke the 500's

 

[cjl]

No. But i have black, blue and Barracudas. Its hardly noticeable.
The write seek time of 7200.12 is around 9ms and the seek time of Blue is around 8.5ms. That 0.5ms is something which you can ignore!
Velociraptors have a seek time of around 4.5ms. Even then 4ms is hardly something a human being can feel! I agree that when, when when it all adds up it may matter. But in the OP's case, and extra 200GB is what counts.

A single delay of 4ms isn't that noticeable, true.

However, if you do something which involves 1500 seeks, then by your numbers, a 720.12 will spend about 19.5 seconds seeking, a Caviar Blue will spend about 19 seconds seeking, and a Velociraptor will spend around 11.25 seconds seeking (This includes rotational latency). An Intel SSD would spend around half a second seeking.

Of course, this is just the time spend seeking - the entire operation will take longer, depending on how much data has to be read between each seek. However, if you assume comparable transfer rates (a decent assumption for all on this list except the SSD), then the Velociraptor will be around 8 seconds faster than a Caviar Blue, while the Blue will only be around 0.5 seconds faster than a 7200.12. This is why a velociraptor is noticeably faster, but the Blue is not noticeably faster than the .12.

 

[abajbeir]

thank you guys for this solutions they all helpful, So i think I'll go with VelociRaptor as all i care about is boot time and games and after 3-6 month i will add a second one and configure it as raid 0.