7200.12 or aaks?

[wolf2009]

haha no competition, what was that rep thinking. Putting up a 2x 250 GB platter drive against a 1x 500 GB platter drive.

 

[Fitseries3]

he said i could do whatever i want with it when im done.

anyone want it?

i need something thats at least 2x as fast

 

[DOM]

want the WD ?

 

[Studabaker]

What like, for free? LOL.

I've been wanting a backup drive, and I had that one in mind...

 

[Fitseries3]

sorry guys... nothing is free.

i spent most of the day reviewing this drive so i pretty much earned it.

PM me if you really want it.

 

[InTeL-iNsIdE]

man my wd6400aaks kicks ass, i get 101mbps transfer rate and it feels snappy as anything, hoping to raid 0 it on the next couple of weeks

 

[lisburnni]

hands its arse on a plate

i have two of these in raid 0 as an OS drive and they are fantastically fast

[url]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/8679/hdtunebenchmarkintelrai.png[/URL]

[url]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/2761/raid32kb1.png[/URL]

i believe the spikes are the drive being accessed as its under test

 

[Fitseries3]

true true...

but

im still getting more ssds.

a single ocz vertex can do 250mb/s average read and 200mb/s write. in raid they can do 2x that.

 

[lisburnni]

sell me your old ssds when done fella

stephen

 

[HellasVagabond]

I also have plenty of SSDs here, they are great but still the capacities are no match for normal drives, so for backup and games i vote normal HDDs...Still for OS SSDs win by default

 

[freaksavior]

http://img.techpowerup.org/090607/Capture273.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/090607/Capture274.jpg

7200.12 takes it.

just by a litte

seagate ftw

 

[TheGuruStud]

Longevity over speed, I say. These WDs are solid.

 

[Studabaker]

Yeah, I'd rather have two slower WDs than two faster Seagates in RAID0 any day? Why? I trust WD, they've never failed me, but I've had to change out so many Seagates, why would I complain when people who pay me to work on their comps replace their Seagates with other Seagates? In a year or two, I'll be comin back for more work

 

[angelkiller]

Yeah, I'd rather have two slower WDs than two faster Seagates in RAID0 any day? Why? I trust WD, they've never failed me, but I've had to change out so many Seagates, why would I complain when people who pay me to work on their comps replace their Seagates with other Seagates? In a year or two, I'll be comin back for more work

No offense to you and your experiences but I've heard the same thing about all hdd manufacturers.

 

[TheGuruStud]

No offense to you and your experiences but I've heard the same thing about all hdd manufacturers.

It depends on what time frame people are talking about. Each manufacturer had series or years where the drives were great. But then everything goes downhill. Maxtor, the worst drives ever made were apparently good in the beginning. I know old Seagates are excellent. You can find those and WDs that are 10+ yrs old still running strong. I remember seagate having a great reputation just 2-3 yrs ago and now I hear they're failing left and right.
I don't put stock in toshiba drives. I've seen them fail all too often in laptops, but I do think that's from the heat b/c dell and other are retarded. Don't even get me started on quantum, especially the fireballs. They were called that for a reason lol.

But all in all only WD has stood the test of time for me. They do produce some bad series of drives, but I just check the reviews out and it's blatantly clear which ones fail (plus never use the ones with lots of platters).

 

[Studabaker]

No offense to you and your experiences but I've heard the same thing about all hdd manufacturers.

No offense taken, after all, you say you've HEARD the same thing about all HDD manufacturers, but I've actually DEALT with it.

 

[angelkiller]

No offense taken, after all, you say you've HEARD the same thing about all HDD manufacturers, but I've actually DEALT with it.

I've heard from people that have dealt with it...

Here's my take on hdd reliability. I don't really care. Why? I think Seagate and WD have gained enough knowledge to make a hard drive that will last a long time. I think because of the hdd's design, it is inevitable that a certain percentage will fail. But I think if you did a large study at any point in time, the difference in failed drives of Seagate vs the failed drives of WD would be extremely tiny. So small that the difference would be insignificant. So I don't really take reliability into account when I buy a hard drive. I just think that there's a certain percentage that it will fail, whether it be WD or Seagate. But admittingly, I have no data to back this up. But, as long as I backup my data, a drive failure is nothing more than an inconvenience anyway.

But that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Dice]

This is exactly what ive been looking for, but im still confused.

I've been looking into setting up a raid0 system drive, my first attempt at raid, and im still unsure what to get. The drive will be used for Vista, Games and applications, I'll keep all my media and files on my current disk, a WD black 1T.

Initially i thought I'd go with the segate as it had some good reviews and was a 500GB platter. Then i started looking at benchmarks posted around the web at for the most part the WD Black was getting far better seek times and aplication loading, exactly what is important for what i want right??

also the WD has 5 year warnty, I know all electronics have a cerain degree of failier risk but I had a 7200.10 die on me last year and then there was the .11 thang.:shadedshu

So how come when Fits does it the seagate kills the WD??? would having the larger platter of the 640 make much difference? I had all but decided to go with 2 640 wd blacks and then I see this and im at a loss again.....

 

[Fitseries3]

640gb has dual 320gb platters like the 7200.12

wd 500 aaks has dual 250gb platters hence why its slower

wd 500 aals has dual 320gb platters and should be as fast as the 640gb becuase its the same drive as the 640 it just uses 1 less side of a platter.

 

[filip007]

Why not Samsung Spinpont F1 642JJ this one have 320GB plates?

This is Raid0...

 

[Fitseries3]

i have owned 7 samys and every single one has died in 4 months or less. they dont even exist in my world.

 

[Dice]

my bad didn't check your WD drive close enough. which would you recommend 2*7200.12 or 2*AALS?

 

[Fitseries3]

segates have always lasted longer for me. until recently they also had longer warranty but thats not something i ever have to worry about.

for me, i like ssds. NOTHING can come close to the speed of ssds.

maybe you can raid 8 regular drives and get better speed than 1-2 ssds and have tons more space but i dont need space and i certainly dont have space for 8x 3.5" hdds. 1-2 ssds are smaller than a single 3.5" hdd

 

[Dice]

I cant affrod ssd's yet, when the price per GB comes down a bit more maybe but for now a couple of cheep hdd's is the way I think.

 

[Sihastru]

A 10-20MB/s difference in transfer rate is not that important, but 12ms compared to 16ms access time is very important. IO/s is also important.

So the nice curves on all these graphs are irrelevant. If you can get the drive to 140MB/s at a 16ms random access time, it still looses overall to a drive that can do 120MB/s at a 12ms random access time.

I repeat, ms is key and not MB/s, especially when the MB/s are so close.