Discussion in 'Storage' started by Fitseries3, May 18, 2009.
which is faster?
WD 640aaks or seagate 7200.12?
i need to know asap
7200.12 is faster in mb/s, but has a slower access time.
how much we talkin here?
it will be used as an OS drive and needs to load benchmark data fast as possible
Then I would sugest the 640 AALS. That is the fastest all arround.
i got a .12 and it's fast. very nice drive.
not a fan of wd though.
is that the WD black?
honestly.. i dont need size, i need speed. what is the FASTEST 7200rpm sata drive right now?
wow, easy fits, dont get mad, IMO, the fatest is the seagate 7200.12 as is single platter in its 500gb iteration.
7200.12's have shitty access times. Because of that the Caviar black is probably your best bet.
i have BOTH 2x aaks and 7200.12 in 2 raid 0
the 7200.12s have a much higher mbps transfer rate, but they are a lot slower in access time. somthing like .12 vs .16 iirc
i would go the aaks drives if i was going to buy any more, just had one of the 7200.12s fail 1 month after i got it due to a power surge.
well the aals 500gb seems to have 32mb cache. it does look pretty quick but its $10 more than the seagates.
im finding the 500gb 7200.12's for $57
go the aaks drives imo. there fast with lowish latency.
will try to find benchmarks if i have them of both drives vs eachother.
just relised they got deleted when i formated my ssd , iirc the aaks drives pushed 180-200 mbps @ 12ms
wile the 7200.12s did 220-260 tops @ 15-17ms.
both in raid zero that is.
is the AALS really 32mb cache for the 500gb?
i need a review on it.
not really a review but i found this http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1364978
yes the aals has 32mb of cache
even better direct comparison between aaks and aals
+1 for Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB WD6401AALS
Speaking from personal experiences... Go for the AAks .. Here's a screenshot of 2XWD 500AAKS in ASUS speeding HDD and they are screaming fast bro
And here is the exact model I have: (the 500AAKS Version )
EDIT: Go for the "WD Black" versions and you will get better read times and a little better latency
i got the seagate 7200.12. it was $20 cheaper and has higher throughput.
i DONT want a raid. i've been running raids for years.
the lower latency is what gives that zippy feeling in the OS.
I'd definately take a little lower throughput for slightly lower latency, especially if it was less than a 10mb difference.
well price is also a big consideration. i need to save every $ i can. i couldnt justify the extra $20
Fit can`t justify 20$
The guy who spends that much money on hardware
you forget that i get alot of stuff half price or even free...
How, where and why?
Also i am going to be getting a 500GB WD black aaks, but then Ebuyer just sent me an email saying that the Samsung F1 1TB was down to £60 which is stupidly cheap seeing as the WD is like £45. So yea which should i go for here? Only posting here because you people seem to know everything.
you also make sure to get the better hardware and not skimp. if you're really looking for the fastest desktop drive you know what you need to get.
You wont be let down by the 7200.12. Seagate makes quality drives and the Baracuda's are uber fast. Dont get me wrong I have dual 320AAk's but I also came straight from a barracuda and personally would go back to Seagate, even more so at $20 less a drive.
HDTune/HDTach it and look at the access time....
Separate names with a comma.