Western Digital's VelociRaptor drive gets reviewed

We already had some early benchmarks of Western Digital's speedy new VelociRaptor hard drive the day it was announced, but the folks at Extreme Tech have now had a bit more time to spend with the drive, and they've churned out a full review of it for those that still haven't made up their mind. As with others, they found the drive more than lived up to its promise of being the "world's fastest SATA disk," with it even beating out many solid state drives in terms of write performance. The biggest downsides, as you might expect, are its relatively high (but not unreasonable) price to gigabyte ratio, and its maximum 300GB capacity, although that's nothing a second (or third) drive can't solve. Of course, they don't stop there, and you can find plenty of charts and comparisons to quench your curiosity by hitting up the link below.

[rektide @ Apr 30th 2008 5:50PM]

ExtremeTech has fine reviews, but I'd much rather go to the de-facto experts on hard drive reviews, StorageReview. Their review was also out the day the drive was announced, April 21st.

http://www.storagereview.com/WD3000BLFS.sr

[Ryan @ Apr 30th 2008 5:58PM]

As were others....

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=548&pid=2

[huh @ Apr 30th 2008 7:03PM]

They should be more than the de facto standard for hard disks, they should be the standard for every type of review. Their professional, consistency and intelligence (eg their comparison database and use long term use input system) means you can properly compare devices and they use community input in a way that is far smarter than any other review site. And they've been doing this from the start. Every other site is just what someone decided to write down that day. Storagereview ftw.

[phanbouy @ Apr 30th 2008 5:52PM]

isn't a raptor just a nickname for a velociraptor anyway? that's like rebadging your old "T-rex" as "New!!!1 Tyrannosaurus Rex!!"

[Mike @ Apr 30th 2008 6:12PM]

no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor

[slarity @ Apr 30th 2008 6:14PM]

and for that reason I was thinking this was an amazing name

[YEABOY @ Apr 30th 2008 6:35PM]

raptors are birds foo
velociraptors are dinosaurs

[Michael @ Apr 30th 2008 6:49PM]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/velocity

The "veloci" part of velociraptor means "fast"

[Carl M @ Apr 30th 2008 5:52PM]

Tech Report did a more comprehensive review a week ago:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14583

I still wonder why WD didn't make the ports line up with those of a standard 3.5" drive. This drive can't be used in cases that have drive sleds that slot into a backplane.

[Sean O @ Apr 30th 2008 6:31PM]

Most RAID storage boxes use a sled. isn't that what a large portion of users would want these for? Also, a Mac Pro can't use it either. Ridiculous. How can they make a 3.5" drive that won't slide into a backplane?

[Michael @ Apr 30th 2008 6:54PM]

@ Sean O:

They didn't. They made a 2.5" drive with a 3.5" adapter.

[Tom @ May 1st 2008 12:31AM]

I wish they would fix the connector issue. Was really hoping for a new raptor to go with my new Mac Pro, and they pull a stunt where the claim "Worlds fastest SATA drive" but forgot the * disclaimer that says they violated SATA standards on connector placement.

Yeah, sure, for a 2.5 inch drive it's in the proper place, problem is you void the warranty making it a 2.5 inch drive. So with that chunk of metal attached to it, it's a 3.5 inch device that should have followed 3.5 inch connector placement standards. Even if it meant placing the drive off center, or using a little PCB that plugs into the drive and provides the connectors in the right spot.

And of course I e-mailed WDC about it, and they saw the word Mac and immediately said "Oh, well we haven't tested it in a Mac". This while they completely ignored my comments that Macs use standard drives just like every other computer, and also ignoring my desire to use one in my NAS, and also external eSATA case that expects connectors to be in the right place.

[Sean O @ May 1st 2008 4:12AM]

@Michael,
No, it's not a standard 2.5" drive. If you remove the heatsink it's still way too thick to be used in any enclosure meant for a 2.5" drive. This is 3.5" drive, meant to be mounted in a 3.5" bay. It's a douchebag move, plain and simple. They could have floated the connector so that it'd be in the right spot, and used a small PCB or ribbon cable or something to attach it.

[Tom @ May 1st 2008 1:56PM]

It is a standard 2.5 inch drive within spec, just not a standard notebook 2.5 inch drive. Most consumer enclosures expect a notebook drive, thus don't fit. Easily fixed on the enclosure side. I believe 2.5 inch drives can go to 19.5mm with no issues in the enterprise space, thus this one would work fine in any 2.5 inch SATA/SAS compatible server.

[linuxamp @ Apr 30th 2008 6:24PM]

You'd think that a 2.5 inch drive would be slower than a 3.5 since the spindle is smaller hence less data accessed per revolution. Then again I suppose the head has a shorter lateral range.

[Dave Murphy @ Apr 30th 2008 6:26PM]

Everyone who's citing these reviews -- including Extreme Tech's -- are talking about benchmarks based on engineering samples of drives, not final product. It's even on a huge sticker in the pictures of said drives.

Western Digital might very well release a final version of the drive that performs differently than what these sites are setting. And in the storage world, something like a ten percent performance difference is a pretty big deal.

Everyone loves numbers, but very few sites seem to be noting--clearly and measurably--that they're not testing versions that you, the consumer, will be purchasing. This Extreme Tech article -- a week late to the punch, mind you -- is a perfect example of that.

[Dave Murphy @ Apr 30th 2008 6:28PM]

God, typos aplenty. Anyway, while I'm apologizing for my sloppy keyboard skills, I should also disclose that I'm an editor at Maximum PC. Not trying to shoot down the competition, I just think it's important that everyone realizes that these benchmarks will not reflect the drive you purchase at the store. They'll be close, but they won't be identical for better or for worse.

[huh @ Apr 30th 2008 7:16PM]

Dave Murphy, if you're an editor, can you comment on why no other site is as good as storagereview. They are the only site I know of that enters all device data in a comparable database going back to the their start, they are the only site I know of that collects and provides long term usage data supplied by users. Not to mention the high quality and consistency of their reports, reinforced by the structure of their database. I'm not trolling (well, not nonconstructively, anyway), I'm just puzzled whether the majority of review sites are doing anything other than rambling about their impressions that day.

[Dave Murphy @ Apr 30th 2008 7:36PM]

Each website serves its readers in a different capacity. Storagereview is a great resource if you want to check out how a drive performs in an absurd number of tested environments. At Maximum PC, we don't think our readers would be best served by the results of an Iometer file server test, given that a great majority of readers will not be looking to make purchasing decisions based on a drive's simulated performance in a server environment. That's not a criticism of the benchmark, nor Storagereview -- merely a reflection of our process.

They do what they do, we do what we do, everyone else does what everyone else does. We could go back and forth for awhile, but I guarantee that your opinion of benchmarks and websites will differ from mine, which will differ from some random person in Best Buy's, et cetera. If Storagereview, PC Magazine, Maximum PC, or that guy down the street is what you use to evaluate upcoming technology, that's an individual decision shaped by your trust in said entity's reviewing process, testing methodology, and previous recommendations.

[huh @ Apr 30th 2008 7:42PM]

Dave Murphy, I think storagereview does comprehensive tests that address any aspect of device performance, and includes the community in a very intelligent way. They are more directly interested in addressing the human condition and progress, whereas other sites seem more interested in whatever the reviewer of the day feels like writing under whatever headings. Sorry, I am just amazed by the general horrible quality of reviews over a long period of time on the web.

[Dave Murphy @ Apr 30th 2008 7:43PM]

Huh,

We know -- you've said the same thing in virtually every post you've made on Engadget storage stories.

[huh @ Apr 30th 2008 7:50PM]

Dave Murphy, yes all four posts. Admittedly, I do tend to harp on themes. I wonder why.

Hey, enjoy happy typing while creating another page for the banner clicks without addressing anything real.

[A.C.E.R. @ Apr 30th 2008 8:32PM]

huh: enjoy complaining about nothing and living up to your name. If you know so much why don't you make your own review site? dick.

[huh @ Apr 30th 2008 8:48PM]

A.C.E.R. , I don't run my own commercial site because the conditions aren't there, instead I will deign to occasionally give sites my banner views and clicks, when I'm not blocking them, and even sometimes writing my own comments, which add to banner clicks and sometimes content. While trying to constantly be more constructive, rather than focusing on a simpler formula (I've commented Engadget's tone in the past, and even discussed it with a founder, who agreed with my pov).

These sites purport to provide a useful service, yet they have basically been the same since the 90s, they just provide some sort of formulaic (but in a cultural rather than component way) commentary on whatever topic they have in front of them. If I did my work like that, in a competitive field, I'd have no work very quickly. It's been a long time since base concepts were introduced. How are review sites getting better over the years, aside from general web features like blogs and rss?

Granted, it may not be a very competitive field, or well paying, but why should people who are not really interested participate? Why not instead try to contribute to the absolute most agreeable possible definition of human intelligence, like storagereview?

I agree I sometimes get a bit aggro, but I find people get very defensive very quickly, without even trying to talk about the core subject, instead taking it to ridiculous extremes. In this case, a site which creates a reuseable database over time, including user input in a real way (better than polls). I first ran across storageview (which I have no affiliation with) in the mid 90s, and it struck me as a very smart site because of the quality of the reviews and their breakdown of discrete parameters. Ten years later, why don't review sites have a formal definition of these kinds of parameters, and exchange them?

[d840 @ Apr 30th 2008 7:39PM]

This sounds great, but with SSDs looming on the horizon, I won't be buying any high-performance magnetic storage devices unless the prices come way WAY down.

[A.C.E.R. @ Apr 30th 2008 8:35PM]

By the time SSDs are affordable they'll be phased out for better technology. If you play the waiting game with technology you may as well wait forever.

[Sema Nekeerv @ Apr 30th 2008 7:01PM]

what if I ripped it out of that gay heatsink and threw it in my macbook?
would it explode or implode?

[Carl M @ Apr 30th 2008 7:28PM]

It wouldn't fit. It's taller than your typical notebook drive.

[Frankenstein Black @ Apr 30th 2008 7:04PM]

Call me when it hits the Newegg!

[Kaminix @ Apr 30th 2008 8:17PM]

Fast Raptor... VelociRaptor.
Ha ha ha, I get it. Ha ha ha, very funny, and so clever!

[Ty @ May 1st 2008 12:21AM]

Anyone want to buy two 150 gig Raptors in good shape? I smell an UPGRADE.