Fastest 500GB-1TB

Y

YamahaAlex37

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
1,775
I am looking for the fastest hard drive that will hopefully improve game loads etc.

I am looking at the WD Black for $55, or the Samsung F3. Anyone have any recommendations?
 
I would put the WDC black faster than the Seagate Momentous XT but that depends on how you use the Momentus specifically how well you can make use of the 4GB of read cache that it provides with its SSD.
 
I was going to buy the raptor 150gb for $100 on sale but everyone kept talking shi* about it in the hot deals thread. Would that be better than the WD black 500gb?
 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227523
Probably one of those :D

On a serious note, I'd go with the Caviar Black personally. Raptor's are still fantastic drives, and the reason people bitch is because their niche has been taken away by SSD's. Raptors used to be the go-to drive for performance, but many argue they're not worth it since SSD's came out. There's really nothing wrong with them, imo.
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
I was going to buy the raptor 150gb for $100 on sale but everyone kept talking shi* about it in the hot deals thread. Would that be better than the WD black 500gb?
Click to expand...

I thought you needed 500 GB minimum?

If you only need 150 GB, then the fastest drive is definitely an SSD.

If you need at least 500 GB, and you must have a hard drive (i.e., no SSD or PCIe SSDs), then the fastest drive is going to be a 10K RPM 2.5" drive, either the Seagate Savvio 600 GB or the WD Velociraptor 600 GB.

If you have a budget, you need to specify that as well. You just asked for the fastest hard drive without specifying a maximum cost.
 
Last edited:
While the Velociraptor is faster than something like the Caviar Black, I don't think there is as much of a case for it as there used to be - SSDs have taken over that high-speed role, while the new fast 7200 RPM drives are close to the same speed as a VR and much more affordable. I'd get a Caviar Black and call it a day.
 
The 2.5" 10K RPM drives beat the 3.5" drives with much shorter access times (head seek + rotational latency), which means better performance for small file random access. But they are much more expensive than 3.5" drives, although still cheaper than SSDs. For certain applications, they may be the best choice for the money. But I think the niche is small.
 
My budget is $100, which is why I was considering the 150gb Raptor, and then I would put OS and main programs on it but keep my 5400rpm drive for the rest. But if a $50 WD Black is going to give me similar performance and 3x the storage I would much prefer that.
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
My budget is $100, which is why I was considering the 150gb Raptor, and then I would put OS and main programs on it but keep my 5400rpm drive for the rest. But if a $50 WD Black is going to give me similar performance and 3x the storage I would much prefer that.
Click to expand...

That $100 is a pretty big constraint to leave out of your original post!

Do you mean Velociraptor? I thought the Raptor series was discontinued.

While the Velociraptor would outperform a 7200 RPM 3.5" HDD, particularly in small file random I/O, I do not think you would notice much difference in common day to day usage.
 
For your price range I would get a 1TB WDC black drive. That would be in most cases faster than the 150GB Raptor (if you really mean the discontinued raptor) and you will have much more space..
 
I can't really recommend the 1TB Black with the 32MB cache. I pulled mine out of my main rig after discovering the significantly slower than expected real-world performance, especially in video editing applications (it took nearly twice as long as it should have). The firmware on those drives made since late 2009 (or late last year) made the Black eat up far more of the CPU and memory than other drives. I knew something was fishy with the WD1001FALS (which some people call the WD1001FAILS) when an older Asus P5K motherboard (with no AHCI support) could not properly recognize that drive (the drive name is correctly detected in the BIOS, but either the system locked up or Windows 7 setup refused to detect the drive). That led me to believe that a motherboard with AHCI support is required in order to use that particular drive at all. And even then, more than 1.5GB of system RAM is eaten up and unavailable for use even when there's absolutely no background programs at all whatsoever running! That's another reason why this particular drive would not run properly on any system with less than 4GB of RAM installed.
 
E4g1e said:
I can't really recommend the 1TB Black with the 32MB cache. I pulled mine out of my main rig after discovering the significantly slower than expected real-world performance, especially in video editing applications (it took nearly twice as long as it should have). The firmware on those drives made since late 2009 (or late last year) made the Black eat up far more of the CPU and memory than other drives. I knew something was fishy with the WD1001FALS (which some people call the WD1001FAILS) when an older Asus P5K motherboard (with no AHCI support) could not properly recognize that drive (the drive name is correctly detected in the BIOS, but either the system locked up or Windows 7 setup refused to detect the drive). That led me to believe that a motherboard with AHCI support is required in order to use that particular drive at all. And even then, more than 1.5GB of system RAM is eaten up and unavailable for use even when there's absolutely no background programs at all whatsoever running! That's another reason why this particular drive would not run properly on any system with less than 4GB of RAM installed.
Click to expand...

What do you recommend? That's wierd why so many people say the WD Black is the best...

Can anyone link benchmarks of game load times, etc, comparing the black and f3?
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
What do you recommend? That's wierd why so many people say the WD Black is the best...
Click to expand...

I can't make any recommendations due to my experience with only a limited number of drives. But I was somewhat disappointed with this particular Black. Not only was the firmware version on that drive botched, its raw sequential transfer speed isn't all that good because it (at least my particular sample) uses three 334GB platters (most other current 1TB hard drives use two 500GB platters). And while it may have the fastest access speed among all 7200 rpm hard drives, it comes at a significant expense of seek noise. The 500GB Black is even worse: It uses two 250GB platters while most other current 500GB hard drives use a single 500GB platter. And generally speaking the lower the platter density, the slower the sequential transfer speed will be.
 
Last edited:
YamahaAlex37 said:
Does 16vs32mb cache make a difference? The WD Black is 2x250, correct? What about the 7200.12?
Click to expand...

The 7200.12 is 1x500. However, due to its outer tracks being located further inwards compared to most other hard drives with similar platter designs, its maximum sequential transfer speed is a bit lower than most other drives with 500GB platters.
 
E4g1e said:
The 7200.12 is 1x500. However, due to its outer tracks being located further inwards compared to most other hard drives with similar platter designs, its maximum sequential transfer speed is a bit lower than most other drives with 500GB platters.
Click to expand...

So does it beat the WD Black 500 with 2x250?
 
Danny Bui said:
It does
Click to expand...

By around 40 percent. Remember, a doubling of the platter density only increases the sequential transfer speed by 40 to 45 percent. Conversely, halving the areal density of a HDD platter decreases the sequential transfer speed of a drive by around 30 percent.
 
Last edited:
If you must have 500GB disk space budget < USD-100, I suggest Short-Stroke 2x250 RAID-0 from 2x500GB SATA WD-Blue Single-Platter. Newegg price seems slightly high for this model, I think you can get cheaper price elsewhere.
 
lightp2 said:
If you must have 500GB disk space budget < USD-100, I suggest Short-Stroke 2x250 RAID-0 from 2x500GB SATA WD-Blue Single-Platter. Newegg price seems slightly high for this model, I think you can get cheaper price elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You say "if I must"... as if 500gb drivers were hard to find under $100? More like $50...?

Also, I am looking for increase performance over my:
Western Digital Caviar Blue WD5000AAKS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB
Will the Seagate 7200.12 or a Sansung F3 or whatever driver is fastest offer me any better performance than that?
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
Also, I am looking for increase performance over my:
Western Digital Caviar Blue WD5000AAKS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB
Will the Seagate 7200.12 or a Sansung F3 or whatever driver is fastest offer me any better performance than that?
Click to expand...
Can you post a HDTune screenshot of the WD5000AAKS drive you have now?

WD has the unfortunately stupid habit of manufacturing different drives with different number of platters under the same name.

Assuming that you have the latest WD5000AAKS version, no single drive will out perform your WD5000AAKS cost effectively. If you're looking for faster cost effective performance than the WD5000AAKS, you're looking at a RAID 0 array of WD5000AAKS drives or a SSD.
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
You say "if I must"... as if 500gb drivers were hard to find under $100? More like $50...?

Also, I am looking for increase performance over my:
Western Digital Caviar Blue WD5000AAKS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB
Will the Seagate 7200.12 or a Sansung F3 or whatever driver is fastest offer me any better performance than that?
Click to expand...

Well, how old is your current 500GB WD Blue? And please give us the six-character alphanumeric revision number that appears immediately following the drive's model number (you can find this info in the Windows Device Manager under Disk Drives if you're running Windows XP or later). That six-character code is very important as this determines whether your drive uses the current single 500GB platter or the older two- or three-platter design.

Assuming that the WD Blue is the current single-platter design, the Seagate would have been only a sideways-grade from the WD Blue while the Samsung is slightly faster but not sufficiently better to justify spending money on to replace the Blue. But if your particular Blue is of the older two-platter design, it would have been a tad slower than even the 500GB Black due to the latter's slightly quicker access speed but still not slow enough to justify an "upgrade" to that 500GB Black while an upgrade to one of the newer single-platter designs is worthwhile for specific uses.
 
Last edited:
hd.jpg
 
Uhh, dude, please hit "Start" on HDTune, let it run the test, and then post the HD Tune screenshot.
 
:p:p:p
I was just getting you that 6 digit model number, I sware ;)

Does it matter that I'm browing the internet while it's testing?
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
hd.jpg
Click to expand...

I just checked, and you have one of the really early versions of that drive since its renaming from the SE16 to the Blue, with two 250GB platters. Hence, the maximum sequential transfer speed on the outer tracks of that drive would be expected to be in the vicinity of 90 MB/s - about the same as that of the 500GB Black. By comparison, most HDDs with 500GB platters easily surpass 125 MB/s on the outer tracks. Thus, the 500GB Black would be no improvement over your current Blue except for the random access/seek speed.
 
hd2.jpg


I'm getting so many mixed readings about what is better, WD Black, Seagate 7200.12, Samsung F3, etc... aren't there benchmarks that can just flat out prove which one is best?
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
hd2.jpg


I'm getting so many mixed readings about what is better, WD Black, Seagate 7200.12, Samsung F3, etc... aren't there benchmarks that can just flat out prove which one is best?
Click to expand...

Based solely on the maximum and average transfer rates, the 500GB WD Black would have been about the same. The only thing that the 500GB Black does better than your current Blue is the random access/seek speed.

On the other hand, I have 1TB versions of both the Seagate 7200.12 and the Samsung F3 - and actually tested them both. The Samsung F3 is consistently 10 MB/s faster than the Seagate 7200.12 in sequential reads.
 
I'd look at 2x500GB drives. That would be about $80-100. Plus if you haven't messed with RAID 0 before its at least a good learning experience.
 
HI OP,

Sorry I did not make it clear.
1. In one post you said you consider paying 100 for Raptor
2. My reply is that
2a. If you are willing to spend 100 dollar
2b. Get two units of WD5000AAKS Blue Single-Platter. One unit is USD40++. Newegg is USD55, so it is between 2x40 to 2x55 or USD 80-110
2c. I mentioned 500GB because 40GB SSD is reasonable and fast, but not 500GB, so for 500GB, currently, it has to be mechanical.
2d. After purchasing 2x500GB WD Blue Single platter.
2e. Partition 250GB out of each 500GB drive
2f. RAID-0 the 250GB partitions, so you have 2x250GB = 500GB
2g. If you can accept slightly less storage, you can partition less, example, instead of 250GB, use 100GB, so you have 2x100GB RAID-0 = 200GB
2h. By doing (optional) step 2e/g, you can further improve the seek times.
2i. Couple with enough system RAM for filesystem cache, you are set.

Other beauties of such config.
1. In future, when SSD price drops to your comfort zone.
2. Move to SSD, split the RAID-o pair
3. two units of WD5000AAKS still very useful for many things. If not, sell to recoup your cost.
4. 2xWD5000AAKS RAID-0 is "usually" faster than any single disk BLACK under normal circumstances. I understand exception is abundance in our life so I skip paragraphs on that point.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Thanks light, that is interesting, but I have never done RAID and would definently need a tutorial for that.

If the Samsung F3 seems to be the best performing drive however, I will just shop for deal on that...

Does this Samsung SpinPoint F3 HD502HJ 500GB 16MB have the single platter?
What about Samsung HD103SJ Spinpoint F3 Hard Drive - 1TB?

Side question: does 16mb vs 32mb make a difference?
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
Does this Samsung SpinPoint F3 HD502HJ 500GB 16MB have the single platter?
What about Samsung HD103SJ Spinpoint F3 Hard Drive - 1TB?
Click to expand...

The 1TB HD103SJ uses two platters - two 500GB platters. Thus, it would perform the same as its single-platter 500GB sibling.

And yes, I use a RAID 0 array only as my video work volume - that is, a volume for video files that need to be worked on further.
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
I'm getting so many mixed readings about what is better, WD Black, Seagate 7200.12, Samsung F3, etc... aren't there benchmarks that can just flat out prove which one is best?
Click to expand...

There are:

Here's HDTune shots of a single platter WD WD5000AAKS 500GB Blue:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035554754&postcount=377
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pJZ6uImDq...00/HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD5000AAKS-00M9A0.png

Here's the HDTune shots of the WD WD5001AALS 500GB Black drives:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j63/euro-kid/HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD5001AALS-00L.png?t=1245627083
http://img.publish.it168.com/2009/0622/images/1547280.jpg

Here's the HDTune shot of a WD WD6401AALS 640GB Black drive:
http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq96/mudkip777/HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD6401AALS-00L.jpg

Here's the HDTune shots of the Samsung F3 500GB:
http://www.alphaq.org/enginurd/hdd/HDTune_Benchmark_R_SAMSUNG_HD502HJ_2.png
http://www.alphaq.org/enginurd/hdd/HDTune_Benchmark_W_SAMSUNG_HD502HJ_2.png

Here's the HDTune shots of the Samsung F3 1TB:
http://www.alphaq.org/enginurd/hdd/HDTune_Benchmark_R_SAMSUNG_HD103SJ.png
http://www.alphaq.org/enginurd/hdd/HDTune_Benchmark_W_SAMSUNG_HD103SJ.png

I have not see any confirmation whatsoever showing that the WD Black 500GB drives are of single platter design. As shown above, the single platter WD 500GB Blue drive does outperform the WD 500GB Black and WD 640GB Black drives. If you can find any info stating otherwise, I'll be glad to read it.

EDIT: Oh and 16MB VS 32MB doesn't really matter that much.
 
THANK YOU DANNY!!! Exactly what I was looking for!!!

Now to decide, F3 500gb for $43 or 1TB for $70... technically 500gb will be a little faster, correct?
 
Where did you get those awesome benchmarks? I found a great deal on the 7200.12 so I was wondering if it competed up there with those. Thanks
 
YamahaAlex37 said:
Where did you get those awesome benchmarks?
Click to expand...

Google and searching around the forums. Oh and this personal site of a forum member here:
http://www.alphaq.org/enginurd/hdd/ocz_vertex.html

A quick google search turned up this HDTune shot of the 7200.12 500GB:
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff100/nolonger/hdtune-1.png

Roughly 20% slower than the single platter Samsung or WD 500GB Blue drives. That great deal better make that 7200.12 20% cheaper than the Samsung or WD 500GB Blue for it to be worth it.

YamahaAlex37 said:
I found a great deal on the 7200.12 so I was wondering if it competed up there with those. Thanks
Click to expand...
Where is this deal you're talking about?
 
Well It's probably not a great deal, but only because I have a $20 tiger direct gift certificate.
choices:

$45 - Seagate ST3500418AS Barracuda 7200.12 Hard Drive - 3.5", 7200 RPM, SATA 3G, 500GB, 16MB
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4499974&CatId=2459
$55 - Western Digital WD5001AALS Caviar Black Hard Drive - 500GB, 7200 rpm, 32MB
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4914330&CatId=2459
(they don't have F3 in 500Gb :(
$70 - Samsung HD103SJ Spinpoint F3 Hard Drive - 1TB, 7200RPM, 32MB, SATA-3G
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6448061&CatId=2459
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top