Fast WD Drives?

D

dennisjai

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
2,973
Hey all, lately I've been reading in threads randomly about how these new WD 7200RPM drives are as fast as the old 10K RPM Raptors, which WD drives are they talking about? I want to pick up a new one.

Thanks in advance!
 
^That's it

I bought that drive as part of a pretty decent overhaul - Opty 165, 2GB, 8800GT, 250GB Maxtor to E8400, 4GB, 8800GTS 512, and the 640GB WD. I'm most excited about the new drive!
 
The 3200AAKS is also very fast. The 640GB drive is a 2 platter drive, the 320GB is the same platter size/density (which is what makes them so fast) just one platter instead of two.

The Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB 7200RPM is similarly fast as well.
 
^same with the F1 500GB - 2 333GB platters but with space cut off for god knows why.
 
storagereview.com is really the first and last word on drive performance. the new WD Caviar Black is the drive that can challenge 10k drives; nothing else. I'm picking up two WD7501AALS right now: $140 each.
 
Spherific said:
Is the Samsung 1 TB just as fast too?
Click to expand...

Yeah, as long as it's the F1 series 1TB drive

My E8400 is finally coming tomorrow btw, so I'll get to test the board that you sold me :)

myren said:
storagereview.com is really the first and last word on drive performance. the new WD Caviar Black is the drive that can challenge 10k drives; nothing else. I'm picking up two WD7501AALS right now: $140 each.
Click to expand...

Are there any numbers comparing the WD 640GB vs the new Caviar Black 750GB? I find it hard to believe that they can make one of the best drives that much better to make a $140 750GB drive worth it over an $85 640GB drive.
 
As far as I know the WD640AAKS is THE fastest WD SATA drive, next to the Velociraptors. I've got both and they're both freakin' fast. I don't think the 750's are as fast as the 640's.
 
people u all need to remember that these drives may be faster in transfer than the raptors but the raptors smoke them in access times and ssd smokes that

 
Whew I narrowly avoided throwing bile on this merry party. Thankfully for myself and you, we can both escape that.

Unfortunately this WD6400AAKS drive is significantly different than the WD7500AAKS on storagereview.com, in spite of them sharing the exact same moniker. I've asked Eugene to add this to the next roundup that gets posted, it certainly seems like a contendor.

That all being said, the Velociraptor is certainly and the Black Caviar almost assuredly are both quite a bit faster. That didnt stop me from cancelling my order for four 1TB Black Caviars and buying eight 6400AAKS's (for less money) but if you're talking about absolute performance the Black Caviar is the latest newest bad boy on the block and has thusfar absolutely crushed all 7200 rpm competition that its been faced with. I'll wait for the numbers but given that the Black Caviar is very explicitly billed by WD as the fastest 7k drive and that the numbers are clearly there to back it up, I'd highly doubt this low price drive actually wins against it.

head to head comparison of quite a few drives. The takeaways? The Velociraptor is in line with the very best 10k SAS drives, and the Caviar Black demolishes the 7200 field.
 
myren said:
Whew I narrowly avoided throwing bile on this merry party. Thankfully for myself and you, we can both escape that.

Unfortunately this WD6400AAKS drive is significantly different than the WD7500AAKS on storagereview.com, in spite of them sharing the exact same moniker. I've asked Eugene to add this to the next roundup that gets posted, it certainly seems like a contendor.

That all being said, the Velociraptor is certainly and the Black Caviar almost assuredly are both quite a bit faster. That didnt stop me from cancelling my order for four 1TB Black Caviars and buying eight 6400AAKS's (for less money) but if you're talking about absolute performance the Black Caviar is the latest newest bad boy on the block and has thusfar absolutely crushed all 7200 rpm competition that its been faced with. I'll wait for the numbers but given that the Black Caviar is very explicitly billed by WD as the fastest 7k drive and that the numbers are clearly there to back it up, I'd highly doubt this low price drive actually wins against it.

head to head comparison of quite a few drives. The takeaways? The Velociraptor is in line with the very best 10k SAS drives, and the Caviar Black demolishes the 7200 field.
Click to expand...

I don't see them compare the Black to the WD6400AAKS.

You will find them both to have the same platters, black wiuth 3 320GB, 640 with 2 320GB platters. Both should have the same performance.
 
I've read that while the WD 320 and the WD 640 share the same platform, WD tweaked the 320 to reduce noise and so the WD 320 performs below the WD 640 because of that.
 
I've already stated that the WD6400AAKS is not reviewed on Storagereview, and that I've asked Eugene to pretty please with a cherry on top bench it. It does look like a great drive.

@Brahmzy: I'm almost certain the Caviar Black uses 250 GB platters and is different entirely from the WD6400AAKS. Theres 750GB and 1TB variants of the black, so they're either using two different platters, or more likely its a 3 platter v. 4 platter setup.

Further, if you compare the two Black drives (via the head to head link I posted) you'll see the 1TB Caviar Black significantly outperforms its 750GB sibling. Platter count matters a lot: more heads read/writing at once == more performance.
 
ALL4AMD said:
people u all need to remember that these drives may be faster in transfer than the raptors but the raptors smoke them in access times and ssd smokes that
Click to expand...

how does that effect real world performance?; mainly in games

I dont understand how improved access times could be worth the extra money for a desktop PC.
 
brent4president said:
how does that effect real world performance?; mainly in games

I dont understand how improved access times could be worth the extra money for a desktop PC.
Click to expand...

read the frakking comparison i posted damnit and find out yourself. theres three different games there and the numbers speak for themselves. in this case, the raptor cleans slate, although the 1TB Caviar Black is mind bogglingly jaw droppingly close. no other drive comes even remotely close to these two.

this thread would be so much better if a) people stopped bs'ing based on conjecture and read the damn numbers and b) this much improved aaks the wd6400aaks were benched.
 
myren said:
read the frakking comparison i posted damnit and find out yourself. theres three different games there and the numbers speak for themselves. in this case, the raptor cleans slate, although the 1TB Caviar Black is mind bogglingly jaw droppingly close. no other drive comes even remotely close to these two.

this thread would be so much better if a) people stopped bs'ing based on conjecture and read the damn numbers and b) this much improved aaks the wd6400aaks were benched.
Click to expand...

i think you missed the point of my question. I want to know if the games will *feel* any different, and if so, how? I know what the benchmarks are, I just want to know if anyone would actually notice anything while playing the game (less stuttering, for example), or if this just means that loading screens are 3 seconds shorter (big deal).

WoW, for example, loads zones into memory before you get there, so there it doesnt really matter how fast your HDD is because it'll be loaded before you reach the zone wall. Also, loading is very dependent upon the CPU from what i've read. The HDD speed never seemed like a bottleneck for WoW.

I hope this post cleared up what i'm asking.
 
Pardon, I did miss the point. For 99.99% of games it wont "feel" any different, its simply how fast the levels load.
 
All you ever get with a faster drive in modern titles is shorter load times. Period. Ever. Any 7200RPM SATA drive is fast enough to play modern games (yes even Crysis) without issue.

I've tried to explain this to people planning to buy a pair of 300GB Velociraptors to put in RAID0 for their shiny new high end gaming box to little effect, but that's how it is.
 
lol yea...thats the only thing i really noticed when i had my games on m 7200.10 seagate vs when i got the new velociraptor. But that was my mistake, too late to fix now, i should have just bought the 320gb single platter vs the velociraptor.
 
What are the differences you'll see with 1 platter vs. 2? Also how do I tell if my 320gb 16mb WD drive I just bought is 1 platter or 2?
 
myren said:
@Brahmzy: I'm almost certain the Caviar Black uses 250 GB platters and is different entirely from the WD6400AAKS. Theres 750GB and 1TB variants of the black, so they're either using two different platters, or more likely its a 3 platter v. 4 platter setup.

Further, if you compare the two Black drives (via the head to head link I posted) you'll see the 1TB Caviar Black significantly outperforms its 750GB sibling. Platter count matters a lot: more heads read/writing at once == more performance.
Click to expand...

Not to be nit-picky, but just to clarify a mistaken detail here for folks who are in the market for these -- the comparison linked above doesn't in fact include both the 1TB Caviar Black and the 750GB Caviar Black; the 750GB drive included in the comparison is the older WD7500AAKS, which I is indeed a 250 GB platter drive. The 750GB Caviar Black has the same 3-platter setup as its 1TB sibling, just has 5 heads versus 6 (this info is on the WD website and elsewhere). So the performance difference between the two (if any) should be pretty minimal.

Full disclosure: I own the 750GB Caviar Black, so had looked into this detail before making my purchase. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top