Fastest non-velociraptor WDs?

H

[H]adouken

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,039
I can't afford VelociRaptors into my budget, so what's the next best thing for Western Digital? Minimum capacity is 100GB, maximum budget is about $80 (without
shipping/taxes).

Can I do better than this?:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136319

I don't know which HDDs are actually "fast", even if I can read the specs. Like I would assume 7200RPM 32MB Cache is fast but then again you guys know the deeper details like access times etc. etc. For real world blazing performance, which do I go with?

I got a ST3500320AS Seagate right now, but you know the position of Seagate :rolleyes:.
 
WD6401AALS or the WD Black 1TBs are your best bet. But with your budget, that pretty much rules out the 1TB and leaves you with the WD6401AALS.
 
[H]adouken - I agree with the above posters and I like the WD640 black you linked to, assuming this is for typical desktop use, boot drive, app drive, etc.

Platter density really seems to do a lot for good access times and making the drive feel responsive. Some folks get a bit too caught up in data transfer rates, but for typical desktop use, I think access time is the metric that will affect you the most.
 
And another vote for the AAKS/AALS 640GB Black models... fastest non-Raptor non-SCSI non-Fiber non-SAS etc drives out there, at least for physical hard drives...
 
Joe Average said:
And another vote for the AAKS/AALS 640GB Black models... fastest non-Raptor non-SCSI non-Fiber non-SAS etc drives out there, at least for physical hard drives...
Click to expand...

QFT.

I've see numerous benches of the AAKS beating the AALS and numerous benches of the AALS beating the AAKS...all within minute amounts of each other.

Awesome drives.
 
How is that new single-platter 500GB drive from Seagate doing against the WD 640GB drives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top