WD6400AAKS vs WD6401AALS

[-JJ-]

I just switched from WD640AAKS x2 RAID 0 to WD6401AALS x2 RAID 0, and here are the results - AAKS vs AALS

System specs on which I ran HD Tach 3.0.4.0 long bench 32mb test un HD Tune 2.54 default test. I run all benches using the same exact OS image ;)

MOBO: Asus P5K-E WIFI-AP (v.1006 bios)
CPU: C2D E8200 (Q744A860) @4,00ghz (1,353v vcore) cooled by TT BT
RAM: 2x1GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 @1200Mhz (PC2-6400, D9GMH)
HDD: WD6400AAKS x 2 (RAID 0) / WD6401AALS x 2 (RAID 0)
VGA: ASUS RADEON HD4870 (1GB) cooled by TRAD2
SOUND: Creative SOUND BLASTER X-Fi Xtreme Music
PSU: Zalman ZM850-HP


WD6400AAKS x 2 RAID 0 HD Tune 2.54
http://www.ocforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=69274&stc=1&d=1226790102

VS

WD6401AALS x 2 RAID 0 HD Tune 2.54
http://www.ocforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=69272&stc=1&d=1226790090


WD6400AAKS x 2 RAID 0 HD Tach 3.0.4.0
http://www.ocforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=69273&stc=1&d=1226790097

VS

WD6401AALS x 2 RAID 0 HD Tach 3.0.4.0
http://www.ocforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=69271&stc=1&d=1226790086

GENERAL REMARKS:

Unrar(ing) large archives takes even less time. Boot time with AAKS after fresh OS install (using image created with acronis true image) was around 12,5 sec., with AALS boot time after fresh OS install (using the same image as previously) was @10,3sec. Boot time was measured with Bootvis - Trace - Next boot + drivers delays. I clearly noticed that with AALS the hdd starts spinning much earlier in the boot process than AAKS.


StableTrac™ - The motor shaft is secured at both ends to reduce system-induced vibration and stabilize platters for accurate tracking, during read and write operations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Probably StableTrac is the reason why AALS is so god damn quite!!!

Furthermore I noticed that read speed stayed unaffected, eventhough I was installing stuff at the same time and copying data from external hdd. Not sure whether its due to the bigger cache or to the new invented dual processor technology..

[Blazing fire]

Thanks for the benchmarks! What I find most useful was this:

Unrar(ing) large archives takes even less time. Boot time with AAKS after fresh OS install (using image created with acronis true image) was around 12,5 sec., with AALS boot time after fresh OS install (using the same image as previously) was @10,3sec. Boot time was measured with Bootvis - Trace - Next boot + drivers delays. I clearly noticed that with AALS the hdd starts spinning much earlier in the boot process than AAKS.

AALS's 32mb cache and StableTrac has indeed improve performance slightly.

[MR-FIX-IT]

RAID 0 all of those drives and watch your numbers come close to 500MB/s

[-JJ-]

Results from the same setup while using the matrix raid (allocated 150gb from each hdd to one 300gb partition):

2 x WD6401AALS in MATRIX RAID 0 (300gb) HD Tune 2.54
http://i35.tinypic.com/2q1e6fa.jpg

2 x WD6401AALS in MATRIX RAID 0 (300gb) HD Tach 3.0.4.0
http://i33.tinypic.com/seaqdi.jpg

[Paragonics]

Hiya guys. Was reading these 'ere forums and in particular this thread, and it persuaded me to buy a couple of the AALs and pop em in RAID as I was looking for something quick to load up apps.

I would imagine my specs are a little different to most of you so I thought I'd post up what my results are with my specific specs, in case they might make a bit of an interesting read (glance).

Sys specs are (yes I need to upgrade, waiting for the i7/amd war/price drop):

Opteron 165 @ 4400x2 speed
2x 1Gig DDR266 (250Mhz)
Motherboard: 939Dual-SATA2
WD6401AALS x 2 (RAID 0)
8800GTS 320Mb

And both drives are connected to SATA1, Onboard Raid Control.


HD Tune 2.55 results:
Transfer Rates:
Min 111.3
Max 145.7
Av 135.6

Access Time 11.6
Burst Rate 93.6Mbs
CPU usage 20.9%


Ran the tests a couple of times, seems to be consistent. I know speeds are limited by both SATA1 and my cpu/ram speeds, but I have a few Qs though;

1) Why's the burst rate so dramatically different from others on here? I mean 4000mbs vs 94?

2) In JJ's last post, he seems to get significantly higher Min Transfer Rate. So am I right in saying that if I partition off the drive, I can expect higher min Transfer Rates in general? Sorry if that's a stupid question or anything.

3) I assume my CPU usage of 21% vs the general 5% of others in this thread is purely down to me having a slower pc, and not any sorta tweaks or changing anything in the BIOS I mighta missed?

4) And lastly, in HD Tune: Info - I see this:
- "Standard ATA/ATAPI-8 - SATA II" --(I do have 1 SATAII port, tho I'm using both SATA1 ports)
- "Suppported UDMA Mode 6 (Ultra ATA/133)
- "Active UDMA Mode 6 (Ultra ATA/133)


Does anyone see anything wrong there at all?

Cheers,
- A

[hitokiri_808]

Wow those access times in Matrix Raid 0 is amazing. :drool:

I got 2 WD10EACSs sitting on my desk that's gonna go matrix in a few days. Won't have the same transfer or access times as those 640s though. :(

@Para, His burst rates are high because he got write caching and advanced performance enabled on the drive in vista or write back caching enabled in intel matrix raid. Keeping it enabled is a debated topic. If you loose power you might get data corruption etc. As for your transfer being a little lower, its probably the raid controller and/or stripe size.

[chad11779]

Thank you for this. Ive been waiting for this comparison.

[dja2k]

Sorry for being a bit stupid on this matter, but your first test was RAID0 2x640 = 1280GB , so then how does the "Results from the same setup while using the matrix raid (allocated 150gb from each hdd to one 300gb partition)" work? What total space does that give you? Not familiar with using Matrix Raid.

I thought I would want some SSD drives, but for price, I rather get two of these WD6401AALS drives or maybe two WD7501AALS since the price is only like $5 more.

dja2k

[MadMan007]

There's one interesting thing when comparing the 640GB Blue vs Black drive spec .pdf's on the WD site. The whole Blue line has a bit error rate of 1 in 10^15, the 500GB and 640GB Black are stated as 1 in 10^14 while the 750GB and 1TB Black are 1 in 10^15. Meaningful difference? I don't know, but it's strange that the Black line has different bit error rates.

[hitokiri_808]

I thought I would want some SSD drives, but for price, I rather get two of these WD6401AALS drives or maybe two WD7501AALS since the price is only like $5 more.
dja2k

I'm pretty sure those 750s are 3 platter drives, whereas the 640s are 2. Thats what makes the 640s preform better. My 2x 1TB greens are 4 platter and give me ~160MB average read and 10.4ms seek time. Thats with the first 200GB in a matrix stripe.

[dja2k]

I'm pretty sure those 750s are 3 platter drives, whereas the 640s are 2. Thats what makes the 640s preform better. My 2x 1TB greens are 4 platter and give me ~160MB average read and 10.4ms seek time. Thats with the first 200GB in a matrix stripe.
Thanks for that info. I think I am going with two WD Carviar Black 640's then. Hopefully I will see a dramatic improvement over my 90 MB\s max that I get with my current RAID0 setup.

dja2k

[Joeteck]

I have 4 of the 250 gig seagate 410AS (Single platter) drives in Matrix RAID 0. I get 468MB/s continuous, which is great for my game load times. Too bad I'm a sole XP user, otherwise four 640 gig drives would be a sweet setup. Formatted capacity would be 2.385TB, which is just over the 2TB single volume limit.

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5264435&postcount=44

[dja2k]

I gotta ask this, in your personal honest opinion, since I didn't upgrade my drives earlier which I have the money now - would I benefit and see dramatic improvement over my current RAID0 config by buying two of those WD Carviar Black 640's to replace my current old RAID0 config?

dja2k

[tuskenraider]

I gotta ask this, in your personal honest opinion, since I didn't upgrade my drives earlier which I have the money now - would I benefit and see dramatic improvement over my current RAID0 config by buying two of those WD Carviar Black 640's to replace my current old RAID0 config?

dja2kIt'll be a noticeable improvement. Throughput will double.

[Amtrak]

Anyone have non-RAID 0AAKS vs. 1AALS benches?

[Blazing fire]

Good question. Judging by the benchmarks above, I'm very sure the 2AAKS will beat the single AALS by a significant margin.

[Rich'[ard]]

does Vista have Raid capabilities implemented into the OS? or is a RAID controller needed?

[hitokiri_808]

Vista does RAID 0 and 1 with dynamic disks, but you can't make a RAID 0 array your boot partition. Also you can't bench the array with hdtach or hd tune. Gotta use Sisoft Sandra file system benchmark.

[Paragonics]

Hey again, came across a little info that some might find interesting if they come by:

A NewEgg review of a single ALLS drive:




Lightning in a Bottle

Pros: Quiet
Cool
Lightning Fast

This drive is FASTER than my old WD Raptor WD1500ADFD and has the benchmark numbers from HD Tune 3.10 to prove it.

Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 (fresh install with all updates and drivers)
Intel D975XBX2 w/Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
FYI: this drive will format out to 596GB of usable space under NTFS

Minimum Transfer Rate
WD6401AALS: 59.4 MB/s
WD1500ADFD: 53.8 MB/s

Maximum Transfer Rate
WD6401AALS: 118.4 MB/s
WD1500ADFD: 83.9 MB/s

Average Transfer Rate
WD6401AALS: 98.0 MB/s
WD1500ADFD: 73.3 MB/s

Burst Transfer Rate
WD6401AALS: 125.4 MB/s
WD1500ADFD: 103.4 MB/s

From the end of my BIOS POST screen until I'm at my desktop with a functioning network connection is just over 40 seconds.
EXCELLENT!

Newegg now seems to be shipping this OEM drive wrapped in bubble wrap, so thank you Newegg for listening to your customers on how OEM drives should be shipped!

Cons: None

Other Thoughts: If you are looking for a very fast hard drive and don't have the budget for a Western Digital Velociraptor or a good SSD, then this drive is your only other rational choice.
This drive is much easier to live with than my previous second generation Raptor (quieter, cooler, and 4x the space) and feels just as fast, if not slightly faster.

This drive is a steal at this price point, so why not buy two?



Reviewed by "Jimmy"

[dja2k]

Anyone know if you can have 3 of these WD6401AALS in the same system, but only use 2 in RAID0 and the 3rd for storage? Will the ICH10R let you configure this?

Also so anyone know if these WD6401AALS have a 3 or 5 year warranty?

dja2k

[hitokiri_808]

All the blacks come with a 5 year. I think newegg didn't have it listed on the product page, but the warranty is listed on the WD site.

[MadMan007]

Hey again, came across a little info that some might find interesting if they come by:

A NewEgg review of a single ALLS drive:

Lightning in a Bottle

{blah blah, benchmarks and stuff}

Reviewed by "Jimmy"

These drives DO perform nicely but when someone thinks HDTach/HDTune STR benchmark is the only thing that tells you a drive's real usage performance they don't know what they're talking about.

Anyone know if you can have 3 of these WD6401AALS in the same system, but only use 2 in RAID0 and the 3rd for storage? Will the ICH10R let you configure this?

Also so anyone know if these WD6401AALS have a 3 or 5 year warranty?

dja2k

Yes, you can configure the drives as you posted. You just select which drives to make part of the RAID array and any you don't select will just be regular drives.

[dja2k]

All the blacks come with a 5 year. I think newegg didn't have it listed on the product page, but the warranty is listed on the WD site.
Thanks for clarifying that for me; yeah I asked because Newegg doesn't have it listed on there.

Yes, you can configure the drives as you posted. You just select which drives to make part of the RAID array and any you don't select will just be regular drives.
Thanks! That's what I needed to verify before ordering 3 WD 640's.

dja2k

[MadMan007]

It's easy - you'll see when you have the drives and do ctrl+I to get in the RAID config menu.

[dja2k]

Would you benefit from setting up 3 WD 640's in a Matrix Raid like in the "How to set up a Matrix Raid array (with pictures)" thread? Or just use 2 in Raid0?

I am getting confused in my own thoughts on the idea of 3 vs 2 640's. I have 2 500gb externals that hold all my data as backup that I download to my main drives. So I still don't know if just setting up 2 640's in Matrix Raid0 is sufficient and I don't need any 3rd drive for storage because my externals provide that benefit.

dja2k

[Satsumomo]

I'm about to order 2 of these drives, but I've been reading around that you cannot make Vista boot off of a RAID 0 setup?

[MadMan007]

I don't know where you read that silliness but it's not true.

[Satsumomo]

Vista does RAID 0 and 1 with dynamic disks, but you can't make a RAID 0 array your boot partition. Also you can't bench the array with hdtach or hd tune. Gotta use Sisoft Sandra file system benchmark.

So this is wrong? Or is my reading comprehension terrible :(

[MadMan007]

Perhaps that's referring to Vista's software RAID and not hardware-supported RAID like on a chipset or a dedicated controller.

[Satsumomo]

Oh I see... then I'm good :) Thanks

[dja2k]

I've been booting of a RAID 0 and Vista for a while now; its no different than booting off XP using the F6 Raid Drivers method, but Vista already has the Raid drivers integrated so no need for those drivers.

I think with the buy.com $15 credit from PayPal deal today, I am ordering two 640's and setting them up in a Matrix dual Raid 0 setup.

dja2k

[~(o)-(0)~]

I don't think thats right.

In fact I'm pretty sure I was running my Vista x64 off of a RAID setup a while ago, but then again maybe i'm insane.

edit: Guess I didn't post fast enough :p

Nick

[dja2k]

Got my two WD6401AALS and this is what I am showing with HD Tune and HD Tack. First two are without volume cache-back disabled and the last two are with it on. Do you guys keep volume cache-back permanently enabled or not?

dja2k

[sbinh]

nice speed dja2k

[-JJ-]

Got my two WD6401AALS... Do you guys keep volume cache-back permanently enabled or not?
dja2k

I keep it enabled 24/7/365 ;) .. btw, nice results ;)

[raisethe3]

So you can't go wrong either way when it comes to selecting between these two?

[rainless]

So you can't go wrong either way when it comes to selecting between these two?

No. Actually the AALS is significantly faster (if you're paying close enough attention ;) )

I'm in for two. There's only a $5 price difference between getting the 640 or getting the 500. Might as well pocket an extra 240 gigs on the raid side.

Who knows?

Might have to play a game or something. :D

[raisethe3]

Thanks for that. I thought about getting either the WD640 or the WD Caviar Black 1 TB drive. Still trying to juggle between the two. Or I just might get both of them. :santa:

No. Actually the AALS is significantly faster (if you're paying close enough attention ;) )

I'm in for two. There's only a $5 price difference between getting the 640 or getting the 500. Might as well pocket an extra 240 gigs on the raid side.

Who knows?

Might have to play a game or something. :D

[MadMan007]

I don't know about significantly faster, probably not enough that you'd notice in day-to-day use. rainless likes to exagerrate things just a little ;) Unfortunately smaller size drives in a series don't usually get the full application benchmark reviews from reliable websites.But for near the same cost might as well get the Caviar Black.

[Satsumomo]

Even with volume write back cache enabled, I don't get anywhere near those burst rates.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/supermaitro/HDTune_Benchmark_Intel___Raid_0_Vol.png

[nkresho]

^ Me neither, what gives guys, what is the secret?

I just raided my two 6401aals and i'm getting similar numbers to^. Where's the 4000 burst rate?

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc18/nkresho/hdtach/hdtach-1.jpg

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc18/nkresho/hdtach/Untitled.jpg

[raisethe3]

^^^So you guys saying, the WD Caviar Black 1 TB is also good preformance/ noiseless wise?

[dja2k]

nice speed dja2k
I keep it enabled 24/7/365 ;) .. btw, nice results ;)
A bit late on the response but thanks guys! I did see a small decrease once the drives started filling up with data but that is normal.

dja2k

[dja2k]

I can't help myself but newegg has the WD WD6401AALS Black's for $70 with free shipping... so would you say buying 2 more is a good idea? Would you do it?

dja2k

[MadMan007]

^^^So you guys saying, the WD Caviar Black 1 TB is also good preformance/ noiseless wise?

The 1TB is definitely not a noiseless/quiet drive. It's not terrible but it seems that the extra platter adds a fair bit of noise over the 640GB versions. Then again I haven't heard the 640GB Black, only the 640GB Blue.

[TimoneX]

Yip. The WD6401AALS's are a steal at $70 shipped. Lowest $$$/GB in the excellent black product line.

Just snagged one to play with and despite newegg's usual incompetent packing of HD's the drive is in perfect working order.

[Kayden]

:confused: I've never had a problem with newegg shipping me drives. They usually come in hard plastic clamshells wrapped in plastic. As best I can remember, that's how it's always been.

Yip. The WD6401AALS's are a steal at $70 shipped. Lowest $$$/GB in the excellent black product line.

Just snagged one to play with and despite newegg's usual incompetent packing of HD's the drive is in perfect working order.

[Mike360000]

Hi, JJ
"Unrar(ing) large archives takes even less time. Boot time with AAKS after fresh OS install (using image created with acronis true image) was around 12,5 sec., with AALS boot time after fresh OS install (using the same image as previously) was @10,3sec."

I was wondering; I also have Acronis but I can't clone or make a working copy of XP with it using Intel Matrix RAID. Acronis website also said it wasn't possible. So what's your secret in making that work?

Thanks,
Mike

[TimoneX]

:confused: I've never had a problem with newegg shipping me drives. They usually come in hard plastic clamshells wrapped in plastic. As best I can remember, that's how it's always been.

In years upon years of ordering drives from newegg.com I've never gotten a clamshell. OEM drives come in anti-stat bags wrapped in bubble wrap and taped. So far so good...but then they loosely pack peanuts in a box and toss the drive in. Good enough for most shipments, but no good for drives. The peanuts settle during shipment leaving lotsa room for the drive to get smacked around. As a result the attrition rate I've experienced with OEM drives from newegg is around 20% DOA.

[jstutman]

In years upon years of ordering drives from newegg.com I've never gotten a clamshell. OEM drives come in anti-stat bags wrapped in bubble wrap and taped. So far so good...but then they loosely pack peanuts in a box and toss the drive in. Good enough for most shipments, but no good for drives. The peanuts settle during shipment leaving lotsa room for the drive to get smacked around. As a result the attrition rate I've experienced with OEM drives from newegg is around 20% DOA.

The 640's came in EDS bag with some crumbled cardboard paper around it.

Question, I ordered the AAKS when it was $60, then the next day the AALS was $70 so I ordered one of them. What kind of performace issues would I see if I tried to raid them like they are?

Would I better better off returning the AAKS and ordering another AALS?

[-JJ-]

I just raided my two 6401aals and i'm getting similar numbers to^. Where's the 4000 burst rate?


Hi, nkresho,

The reason why you are not getting burst rates as high as myself, because you are using much less space as I do ;). I am raiding two WD6401AALS and benching one large partition of 1,2tb ;). The less the partition, the smaller the burst speed result ;)

Hi, JJ
"Unrar(ing) large archives takes even less time. Boot time with AAKS after fresh OS install (using image created with acronis true image) was around 12,5 sec., with AALS boot time after fresh OS install (using the same image as previously) was @10,3sec."

I was wondering; I also have Acronis but I can't clone or make a working copy of XP with it using Intel Matrix RAID. Acronis website also said it wasn't possible. So what's your secret in making that work?

Thanks,
Mike

Hi, Mike,

I am using Acronis True Image Home version 11.0 (build 8 053) and havnt had no problems of creating backups of my Intel Matrix Raid partition which contains XP ;). Acronis True Image Home simply recognizes it as any another partition and has no problem of backing it up whatsover.

[rainless]

Gonna bump this thread so I don't have to keep looking for my bookmark :D

[Mike360000]

Hey JJ,
I am so sorry I haven't been able to answer you earlier.
I have been really sick and in the hospital, plus a lot of related things.
Now that I am somewhat able to do things I am so far behind it has caused
me to really cut down on my computer time.

As for Acronis and my Matrix RAID, I haven't even had the time to work with it
to try another backup, and my main computer has given my XP startup
problems on top of that..... The main one I was writing about anyways.

For some reason when I recently changed upgraded my mobo and cpu... Q9550
and Gigabyte EP45-UD3P my RAID has always tested much slower. (Old version was
Core 2 6750 and Gigabyte P35-DS3P) I even done a clean install of XP with the same problem.
Well I had originally cloned the P35, before changing out the mobo and cpu, and hoped the
Matrix RAID would be seen by the new mobo since the Matrix was virtually the
same. It did not, and while having an image saved from Acronis I thought I would just
see if it would try and restore the image since Matrix was about the same, cept
different chipset. Running XP should not have had anything to do with this. I tried
to restore the old image but I never got it to recognize the RAID from the start.
So I did a fresh install, but have yet to back that up until I figure what would work.

Besides this problem and with the original install, when I first was running it on the upgraded
CPU/mobo, it showed a substancial slowdown in HD Tach as well as Sandra HD benchmarks.
Originally these drives were scoring app. 160-170 mbs with the old CPU/mobo but now it
shows app. 105 mbs or less. Again this is with the new cpu/mobo.

I am now wondering if this would have had anything to do Acronis not seeing the Matrix?

Anyhow I am still stuck with the performance problem with the new XP install and I am somewhat
afraid to try much in tweaks in fear it may ruin my whole install.

Any ideas?
I know this is a tough one...
Only thing I can think of is; I wonder if I accidently reversed the 2 HDs SATA
connections from one mobo to the new one? I don't even know if it would matter?

Thanks again,
Mike

[Malakai]

IMO on your OS drive access time > read/write throughput.

Raptors have ~8ms access time, WD caviar blacks are 12+.

Still, I would probably use a 640 black over a raptor if I was buying an os hdd right now.

[rainless]

Hey JJ,
I am so sorry I haven't been able to answer you earlier.
I have been really sick and in the hospital, plus a lot of related things.
Now that I am somewhat able to do things I am so far behind it has caused
me to really cut down on my computer time.

As for Acronis and my Matrix RAID, I haven't even had the time to work with it
to try another backup, and my main computer has given my XP startup
problems on top of that..... The main one I was writing about anyways.

For some reason when I recently changed upgraded my mobo and cpu... Q9550
and Gigabyte EP45-UD3P my RAID has always tested much slower. (Old version was
Core 2 6750 and Gigabyte P35-DS3P) I even done a clean install of XP with the same problem.
Well I had originally cloned the P35, before changing out the mobo and cpu, and hoped the
Matrix RAID would be seen by the new mobo since the Matrix was virtually the
same. It did not, and while having an image saved from Acronis I thought I would just
see if it would try and restore the image since Matrix was about the same, cept
different chipset. Running XP should not have had anything to do with this. I tried
to restore the old image but I never got it to recognize the RAID from the start.
So I did a fresh install, but have yet to back that up until I figure what would work.

Besides this problem and with the original install, when I first was running it on the upgraded
CPU/mobo, it showed a substancial slowdown in HD Tach as well as Sandra HD benchmarks.
Originally these drives were scoring app. 160-170 mbs with the old CPU/mobo but now it
shows app. 105 mbs or less. Again this is with the new cpu/mobo.

I am now wondering if this would have had anything to do Acronis not seeing the Matrix?

Anyhow I am still stuck with the performance problem with the new XP install and I am somewhat
afraid to try much in tweaks in fear it may ruin my whole install.

Any ideas?
I know this is a tough one...
Only thing I can think of is; I wonder if I accidently reversed the 2 HDs SATA
connections from one mobo to the new one? I don't even know if it would matter?

Thanks again,
Mike

Sounds like you just don't have Writeback cache enabled... which you would've had to do in the Matrix Storage Manager after upgrading.

IMO on your OS drive access time > read/write throughput.

Raptors have ~8ms access time, WD caviar blacks are 12+.

Still, I would probably use a 640 black over a raptor if I was buying an os hdd right now.

8ms hunh? Well then THE HELL with a raptor!

[Mike360000]

"Sounds like you just don't have Writeback cache enabled... which you would've had to do in the Matrix Storage Manager after upgrading."

Both Data Cache and Write Back Cache are enabled in the Matrix manager...

I originally thought the same thing.... so I rechecked and they are still enabled..

Mike

[dja2k]

Going to order 2 more WD6401AALS from Newegg for $70 shipped today. My current setup is 50 GB for Windows and the rest for Data. I will probably keep the MATRIX Raid setup with dual Raid O's using 4 WD6401AALS. Hope it pays off in the speed!

dja2k

[fritzman]

Anyone aware of any comparisons done between 640Gb Black edition drives in an array, with 1Tb Black Editions in the same setup?

I can't work out if there will be any benefits in running 2/3/4 drive raid0/raid5 matrix array using the 1Tb's over the 640's and am hoping someone can help.

[rainless]

Anyone aware of any comparisons done between 640Gb Black edition drives in an array, with 1Tb Black Editions in the same setup?

I can't work out if there will be any benefits in running 2/3/4 drive raid0/raid5 matrix array using the 1Tb's over the 640's and am hoping someone can help.

Can't imagine there's be a difference. Not if the stripe and sizes are the same. Be sure to use the 256kb offset mentioned elsewhere around here. Worked wonders for me (as you can see above.)

[KTE]

I don't know about significantly faster, probably not enough that you'd notice in day-to-day use. rainless likes to exagerrate things just a little ;) Unfortunately smaller size drives in a series don't usually get the full application benchmark reviews from reliable websites.But for near the same cost might as well get the Caviar Black.
The new revision Caviar Blue drives are nearly as fast as the Caviar Black. In fact, they are faster than the Black in most benchmark metrics apart from full access latency and maximum large block sequential read which is odd (AFA I've seen). The older ones before E0 revision were slightly slower but hardly by much. Good HDD reviews like TR's show this astutely: http://techreport.com/articles.x/16472/1

I'd definitely get the Caviar Black if the price difference was small but its not around here.

[fritzman]

Bit the bullet on 3 x 1Tb Blacks, so will post some benches when I have them in.

[dja2k]

Decided to go with one more WD6401ALLS instead of two. Here are my results for my C Drive with Volume Write-Back Cache Enabled. Previous results with only two drives here (http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=5917088&postcount=33)

dja2k

[MadMan007]

IMO on your OS drive access time > read/write throughput.

Raptors have ~8ms access time, WD caviar blacks are 12+.

Still, I would probably use a 640 black over a raptor if I was buying an os hdd right now.

A 200GB partition on my older WD6400AAKS Blue gets 9ms access time, single drive configuration with AHCI.

[dja2k]

Question for you Raid0 users... my setup is dual RAID0. First Raid0 is 50 GB and second is 1.64 TB. Now if I enable the "Volume Write-Back Cache" option on my 50 GB Raid0 but not on my second one, if the first Raid0 50 GB fails like the power outage or BSOD, will it mess my second RAID0 as well? I have a battery backup, but I do test a lot and get BSOD errors here and there.

dja2k

[dja2k]

Switching from Vista to Windows 7, the results have improved!

dja2k