Western Digital Raptor 36GB 16MB Cache Hard Disk Drive Serial ATA <4.6ms 10,000rpm - OEM - £34.49 Delivered @ Novatech + 3% Cashback - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
370Expired

Western Digital Raptor 36GB 16MB Cache Hard Disk Drive Serial ATA <4.6ms 10,000rpm - OEM - £34.49 Delivered @ Novatech + 3% Cashback

£34.49 @ Novatech
WD Raptor is a new class of hard drive that matches SCSI reliability and performance while providing simplified connectivity for less cost than Parallel SCSI drives and now with 16MB of high speed cac… Read More
MrMoneyBags Avatar
banned7y, 10m agoFound 7 years, 10 months ago
WD Raptor is a new class of hard drive that matches SCSI reliability and performance while providing simplified connectivity for less cost than Parallel SCSI drives and now with 16MB of high speed cache memory.

All Comments

(40) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Good price & very good seek time, but I will stick with my SpinPoint F1s.
#2
why is this only 36gb?

im very curious as to why its special

the best internal is 1.5TB

im obviously missing something
#3
the_gfp
why is this only 36gb?

im very curious as to why its special

the best internal is 1.5TB

im obviously missing something


Think speed not size :thumbsup:
#4
I had a pair of these in RAID0 back when they were £150 each, they flew!

Nowadays, as I don't game and the speed differences don't bother me, I'd just go for a spinpoint. Its still a good price though, and makes a great boot drive.
#5
tek-monkey;5466943
I had a pair of these in RAID0 back when they were £150 each, they flew!

Nowadays, as I don't game and the speed differences don't bother me, I'd just go for a spinpoint. Its still a good price though, and makes a great boot drive.

Used to have 2 x Fujitsu 36GB U320 SCSI 15000RPM drives a few years back. My ears are still ringing from the noise.
#6
thanks for the info im a gamer building a new system so this may be a good option for me.
#7
krjgreen;5467128
thanks for the info im a gamer building a new system so this may be a good option for me.

Use this as a reference, when picking the drives for your gaming rig.

The lower the access time, the faster you can get to the files. But a high read transfer rate is important too.
banned#8
Quality not quantity..
#9
SUMMONER
Use this as a reference, when picking the drives for your gaming rig.

The lower the access time, the faster you can get to the files. But a high read transfer rate is important too.


In my opinion - don't worry too much about the access times, just go for the highest transfer rate and use a good de-fragmenting tool such as JkDefrag on a weekly basis (Google it - I've just started using it and I love it, others may prefer other Defrag tools, though)

Banjo
#10
. .
#11
It's worth noting that these are generation 2 models, and raptors are now on generation 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Digital_Raptor
#12
[SIZE=5]These used to be fastest thing out back in 2004 but any recent 7200RPM will beat it now.[/SIZE]

Just had to get that out of the way ;-)

Areal density has increased greatly since their introduction 5 years ago(!). This is a huge factor in determining drive speed. Their 10k RPM rotational speed can't save them from that fact now.

It's almost tempting to buy one simply because they're such a notable point in enthusiast hardware history, but that would be a complete waste of cash. Spend a little more and get a drive that's over 10x the size and much faster.

P.S. I'm not voting cold as I doubt I could find them cheaper (or even at all) elsewhere ;-)
#13
36GB

hmmmmmm,

bit pointless imo - even if it is 10,000 RPM

what could u use this for & gain a good deal of performance? i'm curious.
maybe an OS - Vista/7
#14
K1LLER HORNET;5469453
36GB

hmmmmmm,

bit pointless imo - even if it is 10,000 RPM

what could u use this for & gain a good deal of performance? i'm curious.
maybe an OS - Vista/7


See my post above.

If these were still faster than current regular 7,200RPM drives then you could put the OS on this and have faster boot times and Windows would be more responsive. You could then install programs etc. to another drive.

But it's actually slower overall so it's a moot point.
#15
BanjoJr
In my opinion - don't worry too much about the access times, just go for the highest transfer rate and use a good de-fragmenting tool such as JkDefrag on a weekly basis (Google it - I've just started using it and I love it, others may prefer other Defrag tools, though)

Banjo


Defragging is a waste of time nowadays. Once a year may be worth doing but certainly not any more often.

Sequential transfer rate is a poor statistic to choose from for desktop users, access times and small random read and writes are far more common in normal desktop use so you're better off picking based on those benchmarks.

PoisonJam
These used to be fastest thing out back in 2004 but any recent 7200RPM will beat it now.

Nonsense, someone linked to the tom's hardware charts a while back and while they don't feature the 36GB Raptor the 74GB version still has a comfortable lead over 7,200rpm drives.


The biggest competition to this is from SSDs as they excel in the same area and do a much better job of it. However, SSDs still seem to be at least twice the price for usable ones so if you want a bit of luxury but can't afford too much then this looks like a good deal to me.
#16
EndlessWaves;5469698
Nonsense, someone linked to the tom's hardware charts a while back and while they don't feature the 36GB Raptor the 74GB version still has a comfortable lead over 7,200rpm drives.


How rude. Don't claim nonsense when you haven't seen them in a direct comparison :whistling:

For a start the 74GB version was much improved over the original. Also, the TH charts are basically pointless when comparing to real-world use for the average home user. I'm talking about day-to-day tasks and more than just one metric (i.e. I/O patterns in a workstation). I'm going by (better) comparisons I've seen over the years where modern 7200RPM drives have advantages over the 74GB version as well as some losses taking it to the point where all-round performance is basically better on the 7,200RPM drives.

EDIT:
Storage review comparing the latest VelociRaptor against the previous 150GB Raptor and (at the time) current 7200RPM drives. You'll see the Hitatchi beats the 150GB Raptor in most tests. Bear in mind that:

1. Storage Review are a much more credible resource for hard drive comparisons, and not only because they specialise solely on the subject.

2. The 150GB Raptor is significantly faster than the older 74GB Raptor, which in turn is significantly faster than the 36GB Raptor.

When you take point 2 into account, you can begin to see just how far behind this extinct Raptor really is ;-)
#17
to say defragging is a waste of time nowadays is, err nonsense. i thought NTFS got rid of the need to defrag.........balls!

defragging is still a very necessary system maintainence job, once a year is ok if you use your pc once a week to browse a single internet site maybe , but for most users at least once a month will definately help speed the system as well as let the HDD breathe a little more easy


on topic :

i remember paying nearly £200 for one of these (the 74gig) a few years back, back in the sames when i had more money than sense lol. good find, aged yes, but stull a good find.
#18
I have had a couple of these running in raid for nearly 5 years, no problems what so ever.
On my last format i made my new 1TB 7200rpm drive as the main drive, the performance dropped like a stone. Went back to my good old raid set-up and never looked back.
Drives run very cool and very quiet, when i first put them in the boot time from after the bios promp was 20 seconds, that included the raid check.
Well that's my 2p worth
#19
wolf33055;5470202
I have had a couple of these running in raid for nearly 5 years, no problems what so ever.
On my last format i made my new 1TB 7200rpm drive as the main drive, the performance dropped like a stone. Went back to my good old raid set-up and never looked back.
Drives run very cool and very quiet, when i first put them in the boot time from after the bios promp was 20 seconds, that included the raid check.
Well that's my 2p worth


RAID0 I pressume?

If so it's a bit unfair to compare a RAID0 set-up to a single drive, no matter the drives involved! :o
#20
Its a bit academic if it is faster than modern drives or not... Its a good deal.

These go for £30 s/h on ebay.

I have 6 in raid5 and they are all over 5 years old. I would recommend as they come with a 5 year warranty which mine have outlasted and never had any grief.

I was recently looking around to see if I could still get a replacement and none of the usual suspects are selling them anymore.
#21
Not bad, but not for me as my OS drives are 160GB VelicoRaptor's :-D .

These are actually very quiet for 10K drives though.
#22
If raptors are you thing you can get a 150gb one from cex for £52 and will have warranty until at least Jan 2011.

TBH my boot drive of choice is Seagate ST3500418AS 500GB. Fast and about £42.
#23
s73;5470484
Its a bit academic if it is faster than modern drives or not... Its a good deal.


Why should it be in this case though? :? The price of this drive was only ever justifiable because it offered a big performance boost. Now though, if it's slower or the same speed as current drives then it has an exceedingly low £/GB ratio.

If it was a lot faster then it would be a different matter, but as it stands there's no real value to this. The point of my post with the big, bold writing was to warn people of this.

However...

PoisonJam;5469437

P.S. I'm not voting cold as I doubt I could find them cheaper (or even at all) elsewhere ;-)


I'm a big believer that it's not about who would want it and who wouldn't as long as it's the best price available, but there's really very little variance in hard drives in so many ways. Even if you only like WD there are many better value deals out here.

It would seem to only make sense if you wanted a replacement for a failed drive in a RAID set-up etc.

Oh, and they're also very noisy drives :)
#24
PoisonJam
Why should it be in this case though? :? The price of this drive was only ever justifiable because it offered a big performance boost. Now though, if it's slower or the same speed as current drives then it has an exceedingly low £/GB ratio.

If it was a lot faster then it would be a different matter, but as it stands there's no real value to this. The point of my post with the big, bold writing was to warn people of this.

However...



I'm a big believer that it's not about who would want it and who wouldn't as long as it's the best price available, but there's really very little variance in hard drives in so many ways. Even if you only like WD there are many better value deals out here.

It would seem to only make sense if you wanted a replacement for a failed drive in a RAID set-up etc.

Oh, and they're also very noisy drives :)
#25
ooops - wrong button

you've kind of answered my point - its a good deal if you are looking for this particular drive.

Individual needs will determine if this drive is of any use for you and if you are looking at this then you will know for yourself
#26
s73;5470690
ooops - wrong button

you've kind of answered my point - its a good deal if you are looking for this particular drive.

Individual needs will determine if this drive is of any use for you and if you are looking at this then you will know for yourself


We're in agreement, then :thumbsup:

I just wanted to make it clear to anyone who unwittingly came into the thread thinking this was as fast as its younger siblings or remember these being blisteringly fast when they first came out but didn't realise regular drives have more than made up the ground since then.
#27
These are wasted on here as very few people know what they are. These drives regardless of generation are nearly as fast as SCSI drives it has nothing to do with size with these its all about speed read and write and reliability .

WD raptor drives are reliable and the idea is you install your OS to the raptor because of its speed it makes boot up quicker and if your wanting to implement a Raid solution and your data is valuable these are the next best thing to SCSI and are cheaper than a SCSI drive and the controller needed to run a SCSI chain.


They do come in very odd sizes compared to EIDE or SATA at this price its a steel if you installed XP to this there would only be 3-4gb of data but with bloated vista or windows7 by the time you have installed the OS there is little room for anything else.
#28
PoisonJam
We're in agreement, then :thumbsup:

I just wanted to make it clear to anyone who unwittingly came into the thread thinking this was as fast as its younger siblings or remember these being blisteringly fast when they first came out but didn't realise regular drives have more than made up the ground since then.


Modern drives have come on a long way but the speed of a new SATA is 7200rpm where as the raptor is 10000rpm the difference is nearly a 1/3 and these are bulletproof and the warranty is far better as these are aimed at business servers as an alternative to SCSI.

The better buy is the 74gb version but if i remember right it only has a 16mb cache but its £55 so double the size for £20 and a lot more useful as could be used for your system partition for any OS with space for apps.
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?WD-740AD
#29
thecheekymonkey;5469933
to say defragging is a waste of time nowadays is, err nonsense. i thought NTFS got rid of the need to defrag.........balls!

defragging is still a very necessary system maintainence job, once a year is ok if you use your pc once a week to browse a single internet site maybe , but for most users at least once a month will definately help speed the system as well as let the HDD breathe a little more easy


NTFS "shouldn't" fragment, but typically does. Mainly due to poor allocation. Defragmenting once a month or two should be fine.

Or you could switch to a filesystem like EXT3/EXT4 and live virtually free of fragmentation. Don't think I've ever defragged my drives in Linux.
#30
PoisonJam
For a start the 74GB version was much improved over the original. Also, the TH charts are basically pointless when comparing to real-world use for the average home user. I'm talking about day-to-day tasks and more than just one metric (i.e. I/O patterns in a workstation). I'm going by (better) comparisons I've seen over the years where modern 7200RPM drives have advantages over the 74GB version as well as some losses taking it to the point where all-round performance is basically better on the 7,200RPM drives.
[B]


Yes, you're right. I've looked up the history and the 74GB version was released three years(!) after the 36GB version. For some reason I was thinking they were released at the same time.

thecheekymonkey
to say defragging is a waste of time nowadays is, err nonsense. i thought NTFS got rid of the need to defrag.........balls!

defragging is still a very necessary system maintainence job, once a year is ok if you use your pc once a week to browse a single internet site maybe , but for most users at least once a month will definately help speed the system as well as let the HDD breathe a little more easy


All the benchmarks I've seen show defragging gives very little increase in performance, but they've not been all that thorough. I am testing it myself but by defragging for a year and then running benchmarks before and after I defrag. I'm eight months in and I've not seen any noticible degredation so I'm inclined to believe the results but we shall see.

Do you know of any tests showing why defragging is a good idea? (not just theory or anecdotes).
#31
i remember seeing a guide that demonstrated that some of the 1.5tb and itb drives could be faster than some raptors, it must be the 500gb platter drives, the idea was to partition the drive in a certain way so the boot partition was on the outside area of the disc, which spins the fastest, so along with more data in a smaller area, it would read and write really fast and work out a lot cheaper than raptors, plus you have the bonus of the extra space. it might have been toms hardware or something, you should be able to google it up
#32
Never has a deal made people spout so much crap. :P

In terms of spinning media there are (usually) three things what effect 'speed'

1) rotational speed
2) data density
3) the firmware

The faster you spin the drive the faster data can usually be found (ie seek time).
The larger the density the usually means a faster transfer rate
Firmwares are written for application, eg on a desktop drive you usually doing one thing at one while on a server multiple things.

So when people are saying the F1 is 'faster', what they mean is that the transfer rate is faster and the firmware is optimized for desktop style tasks.

When people say the raptor is 'faster' they are running tasks where seek time is more important.

Use the correct tool for the job at hand, never assume it's 'faster' in all cases.
#33
uni
i remember seeing a guide that demonstrated that some of the 1.5tb and itb drives could be faster than some raptors, it must be the 500gb platter drives, the idea was to partition the drive in a certain way so the boot partition was on the outside area of the disc, which spins the fastest, so along with more data in a smaller area, it would read and write really fast and work out a lot cheaper than raptors, plus you have the bonus of the extra space. it might have been toms hardware or something, you should be able to google it up


Short stroking is a good idea but it doesn't resolve the problem of rotational latency. It will help though.
#34
A lot has been said about how these are very fast in seek, but newer 7200 rpm drives are now quicker in transfer speed.

For this price it is completely viable to hook up 4 of these in RAID0 should your motherboard support this (many do now). The seek time is mostly still faster than other drives, transfer rates will be amazing as well as having plenty of storage for an OS setup. Cheaper than a new velociraptor too. Cost more in electricity though.
#35
Can't really see the point of buying one of these 36GB drives.
Ok so it's fast and decent quality, but I'd rather have 500GB of space available to me for £35.
Not voted either way.
#36
abaxas
Short stroking is a good idea but it doesn't resolve the problem of rotational latency. It will help though.


A short stroking will take your mind off most problems with your hardware.
#37
EndlessWaves
All the benchmarks I've seen show defragging gives very little increase in performance, but they've not been all that thorough. I am testing it myself but by defragging for a year and then running benchmarks before and after I defrag. I'm eight months in and I've not seen any noticible degredation so I'm inclined to believe the results but we shall see.

Do you know of any tests showing why defragging is a good idea? (not just theory or anecdotes).


There's a few interesting tests available at the Diskeeper website, but I suspect they mightn't be all that reliable.

Anyway, the reality simply is that fragmentation isn't anywhere near as big an issue as it's made out to be. It's a relic of FAT days gone by, and it only still holds up because people who don't really understand repeat the matra verbatim. In FAT days, the filesystem was stupid and placed bits of file anywhere that it could see a blank space. NTFS is much more clever, so fragmentation doesn't occur so much these days. And when it does occur, here's the maths to demonstrate how insignificant the performance drop is:

100MB file read at full sequencial read speed = 12ms seek + (100/60MBps) = 1677ms
100MB file fragmented into 20 chunks = (12*20ms) seek + (100/60MBps) = 1907

So, even a fairly heavily fragmented file is only looking at a 14% difference in performance, roughly speaking. Thing is, the magic of NTFS is that it won't fragment files unless it can avoid it. This means that chances are, this hypothetical 100MB file has become fragmented because it's been changed multiple times, so although defragmenting can put it into a single file, it can't keep it that way. So in reality, all you're doing by defragmenting is making that one file marginally faster for a few occasions, and in the process, ripping the hell out of your harddisk, bringing it ever closer to failure. So all in all, while it was a good idea several years ago, nowadays, it's just not.
#38
Cold from me, since the drive's slow and old at real-world tasks. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/3.5-hard-drive-charts/Windows-XP-Startup-Performance,673.html
#39
These drives are very old now, but are still lightning. 10k rpm, superb. Especially if you get two of these and put them in a raid 0. I think these also still come with a 3 or 5 year warranty. Had some and had a problem with them, sent them to WD back in Germany and they sent me two brand new 72Gb ones back instead! FREE! Dont know if that was a mistake or not, but WD have and hopefully always will be one of the best HD manufacturers in the game. Until SSD's come down in price, this is a bargain. (I paid £80 per 36Gb drive 4 years ago).

To answer the guy below. You can stick with your 1.5 Tb drive, your only missing something if you want faster load times. Possibly if you have your OS on one of these and put your movies, mp3's and files on your Tb drive?
banned#40
EndlessWaves
Defragging is a waste of time nowadays. Once a year may be worth doing but certainly not any more often.

Sequential transfer rate is a poor statistic to choose from for desktop users, access times and small random read and writes are far more common in normal desktop use so you're better off picking based on those benchmarks.



Nonsense, someone linked to the tom's hardware charts a while back and while they don't feature the 36GB Raptor the 74GB version still has a comfortable lead over 7,200rpm drives.


The biggest competition to this is from SSDs as they excel in the same area and do a much better job of it. However, SSDs still seem to be at least twice the price for usable ones so if you want a bit of luxury but can't afford too much then this looks like a good deal to me.


Wrong!!! I/O performance is basically a synthetic test that is pointless when comparing REAL WORLD performance. This average read test is far more important and gues what!!! the 36GB Raptor is WAY down the list!

Newer drives like the Samsung Spinpoint F1 ARE faster because they have a higher data density so even though they spin at slow speed, this is more than compensated for by the higher storage density. Raptors are also incredibly noisy compared to standard 7,200 rpm disks. Do yourself a favour people. Get the Samsung F1, faster and much much MUCH better value !

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!