| Can I Come Look At These Items? | | This online store is in association with Amazon.com, so these great, high-qualiy products will come from their warehouse or from other partners. Thanks for shopping! |
|
|
|
Western Digital Hard Drive VelociRaptor 300GB SATAII 10000rpm 16MB RoHS WD3000GLFS | 
 enlarge | Brand: Western Digital
Category: CE
List Price: $349.99
Buy New: $258.99
You Save: $91.00 (26%)
New (17) from $258.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  7 reviews
Sales Rank: 815
Media: Electronics
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Hard Drive Size: 300
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 5.8 x 4 x 1
Warranty: 5 years warranty
MPN: WD3000GLFS
Model: WD3000GLFS
UPC: 718037733326
EAN: 0718037733326
ASIN: B001AQWLTQ
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: Brand New Sealed OEM box! Drive ONLY! 5Yr warranty from WD! Fast shipping w/ tracking number. Shipping available to lower 48 states. NOT AK,HI,PR,APO/FPO!
|
| Features:
| • | 300GB Capacity | | • | SATA 3 Gb/s | | • | 16 MB Cache | | • | 10,000 RPM Spindle Speed | | • | RoHS Compliant |
|
| Similar Items:
| • | Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Quad-Core Processor, 2.66 GHz, 12M L2 Cache, 1333MHz FSB, LGA775 | | • | Zalman CNPS9700LED Ultra Quiet Cpu Cooler | | • | Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Quad-Core Processor, 2.83 GHz, 12M L2 Cache, 1333MHz FSB, LGA775 | | • | CORSAIR 1000w HX Series 12v ATX SLI Ready 80 Plus Certified Power Supply - CMPSU-1000HX | | • | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Quad-Core Processor, 2.40 GHz, 8M L2 Cache, LGA 775 |
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Engineered for maximum speed! WD VelociRaptor combines a SATA 3 Gb/s interface and 16 MB cache, to deliver performance that's up to 35% faster than its speedy older brother.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 2 more reviews...
 Very Fast and quiet... September 1, 2008
It is really fast, no noise at all, and it does not get to hot...
 Raptor 300 September 1, 2008
Very nice other than the $300. cost. Seem's to work well within the Win Vista sli, 8GB mem/ram system. Both sysytem info and internet run quickly.
Excellent Hard Drives for Speed Demons amongst us!!!! August 30, 2008
The infamous VelociRaptor - wow...what a drive.
It is fast...it works as advertised.
Very easy to install.... I will give updates to this review in the future to update you on status, speed, use, etc.
Fast, quiet, cool, good upgrade from 150 GB version but expensive August 21, 2008
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
I just upgraded from the 150GB version of the Raptor. It seems noticeably faster. Not only is it faster, but the capacity is double and it runs quieter and cooler. The only reason I am giving it 4 instead of 5 stars is because of the premium price. I think it is a little "too premium". Would be 5 stars if this drive was $200. Even at $200, it would be much more expensive on a per gigabyte basis than a typical 7200 RPM drive.
Example: 1TB for $150 (which you can get now) is 15 cents per GB. This drive is 97 cents per GB. That's 547% MORE per GB. That's quite a hefty premium so make sure it's worth it for you. If you paid that much for a 1TB drive (at 97 cents/GB), then it would cost about $970 instead of $150!
FAST! August 16, 2008
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
I was eager because spending as much money, or more, for a 32GB SSD drive is dumb. (And people complain about the Velociraptor being pricey!) And I like performance; every review I read said this thing flies like a budgie on amphetamines. And, yes, it runs relentlessly fast. STABLE too. Vista loads in half the time and EVERYTHING is far more responsive.
I was hesitant because others reported the unit dying after x number of days. On my system, the drive was instantly found, cloning software worked without a hitch, and a full chkdsk scan revealed 0 sector failures. Time will tell and I might post a follow-up review. Others have mentioned bad sectors or the drive dying after x number of days/weeks. Mine was manufactured on June 8 2008, if that date helps anybody.
I was also eager to spend, because I don't want to go through the hassle of making a RAID 0 array; knowing if one drive fails I lose the whole array. Most reviews show this drive, on average, on par with RAID 0 if not better. Rather less time consuming to put in too...
Also, why only 16MB of cache for this puppy? I can think of reasons for and against keeping only 16MB, so I won't complain too much... :)
|
|
|
| |
News 
