WD6400AAKS HDTune result

I ran HDTune on my new 6400AAKS and my transfer rate result is a bit less than some of the others I have seen posted for the same drive. Is it possible something is bottlenecking, such IDE rather than AHCI mode in BIOS, or is my drive just slower than some?

my result. setup as my backup drive with a vista partition.. not defragmented.

my results in xp main drive (os installed on).

Only one thread down.............http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=579015

@chop_wood, that looks like mine, but do you have AAM on?

@theELVISCERATOR, yes, that is the kind of result I have seen. All three of your transfer rate figures are higher than mine. I notice yours is a -22A7B while mine is a -00A7B. Is this a firmware update or something else? My firmware is 01.03B01 according to HD Tune.

@tuskenraider, I believe that thread deals with the effect of AAM; my drive already has AAM turned off.

Have any of you tried using a 75 or 150GB partition on this model drive as your OS drive?
It is said to rival Raptor performance.
Found this earlier this week

Aruza said:

Have any of you tried using a 75 or 150GB partition on this model drive as your OS drive?
It is said to rival Raptor performance.
Found this earlier this week

Click to expand...

I'd like to see a HDtach/Tune of that. Until then I'm skeptical.

Aruza said:

Have any of you tried using a 75 or 150GB partition on this model drive as your OS drive?
It is said to rival Raptor performance.
Found this earlier this week

Click to expand...

yep I run raid and run a slice on mine...

6ms access times.

with raptors.

I don't think it works quite the same without Matrix raid.


doing the math alone doesnt bring into play all the factors.


So that article = fail.

I actually have a 50 gb partition and a 500 for storage on that system, and running HDTune shows no difference.

It cannot test just the first partition, it tests the whole drive.

theELVISCERATOR said:

yep I run raid and run a slice on mine...

6ms access times.

with raptors.

I don't think it works quite the same without Matrix raid.


doing the math alone doesnt bring into play all the factors.


So that article = fail.

I actually have a 50 gb partition and a 500 for storage on that system, and running HDTune shows no difference.

It cannot test just the first partition, it tests the whole drive.

Click to expand...

There is nothing different about the ability of a drive to access the same amount of space whether its size is determined by an artificial RAID or partiton barrier stopping the head from moving further inward and therefore producing a "slower" measurement.

nightelph said:

I'd like to see a HDtach/Tune of that. Until then I'm skeptical.

Click to expand...

Maybe HD Tune pro does it, but my copy of HD Tune does not show logical drives. From Roadkil's Disk Speed 1.0 I get these figures for a 25GB partition at the beginning of my WD6400AAKS:
Linear read: 104.2648 MB/s
Random read: 4.6647 MB/s
Access Time: 6.10 ms

Edit: Results with Roadkil's Disk Speed 2.0 from a fresh boot, again on the 25 GB outer partition.

@chop_wood, that looks like mine, but do you have AAM on?

Click to expand...

yea i do

=====================

updated: before and after with AAM, downloaded file @ http://www.withopf.com/tools/aam/winaam-27.zip

before

after!


thx for having me look into that

.................
may as well add the rappy x

chop_wood said:

yea i do

thx for having me look into that

Click to expand...

Glad I could help. I home someone can provide a firmware update that will take our drives to the performance level that theELVISCERATOR's drive displays. Until I learn that there has been a hardware change along the way, I'll keep looking for that upgrade.

SHODAN said:

Maybe HD Tune pro does it, but my copy of HD Tune does not show logical drives. From Roadkil's Disk Speed 1.0 I get these figures for a 25GB partition at the beginning of my WD6400AAKS:
Linear read: 104.2648 MB/s
Random read: 4.6647 MB/s
Access Time: 6.10 ms

Edit: Results with Roadkil's Disk Speed 2.0 from a fresh boot, again on the 25 GB outer partition.

Click to expand...

Too bad a 25gb partition is too small for real world use...

Heres my 100gb slice on raptors..


nice program..

Thanks for posting your results.

theELVISCERATOR said:

Too bad a 25gb partition is too small for real world use...

Click to expand...

That depends on the use. I did not make the partition for a test, I use it. My Windows/Programs partition on another drive is a mere 19GB, and it's only half full. The 25GB partition I tested is used for games and scratch, for which it is ample. I realize other people may need (a lot) more space, but I didn't choose my partitions for other people.

SHODAN said:

Thanks for posting your results.



That depends on the use. I did not make the partition for a test, I use it. My Windows/Programs partition on another drive is a mere 19GB, and it's only half full. The 25GB partition I tested is used for games and scratch, for which it is ample. I realize other people may need (a lot) more space, but I didn't choose my partitions for other people.

Click to expand...

I got 50gb on mine and I keep it low as possible...2 games installed right now besides my apps.

Lets see Vista ALONE is sitting on almost 17 gb and this is the home version...

I know some people need a lot more program space than I do; I purposefully use older software, and I avoid bloatware with a passion. Hey, I ran Win2k until late '07.

I would enjoy seeing a WinDirStat screencap of your slice (file types and tree map), if it doesn't compromise your privacy of course.

Vista x64

Awesome, I'm glad there's finally a program that can test partitions

On my WD6400AAKS with AAM turned off (fastest seek) a 200GB partiton gets 9.4ms access time. Certainly makes the drive a bargain compared to Raptors and it has good storage space. My overall HDTune results are the same as the 'fixed' version in this post: http://www.ocforums.com./showthread.php?t=565932

Aruza said:

Have any of you tried using a 75 or 150GB partition on this model drive as your OS drive?
It is said to rival Raptor performance.
Found this earlier this week

Click to expand...

That post is wrong though.

ITs actually much less than a 1/4 strke.


Basically the larger the circurferance the greater the volume.

So if you have a circle that is 10 units in diameter (nice round number). its surface area is pi*d^2 or 3.14*10^2

or roughly 314. Now you want only the outer 1/4 area of the toal area.

So
314 - 78.5 (1/4 total surface area) = 235.5 sq units. so 235.5=3.14*x^2

roughly the sqrt of 75 or 8 2/3 this is the diameter of hte area that takes up the remaining unused portion of the disk

Meaning roughly a 1/8th head stroke


What it does not say though

Is if you decide to use the remaining partition of said drive.

So you install your OS and it takes up maybe 20GB after applications are installed. Now you go and make the remainder of hte disk your download folder.

Instead of a download starting at 21GB mark. it make the 1/8th platter diameter headseek out to the 151GB mark.



Obviously this is all just a rough idea, there is a whole in the center of hte platters also to hold the spindle But its late and I am going to bed

Still nice average STRs on those drives, I would love to get me some of them.

But. with not quite as nice performing HDDs are SOO much cheaper now, I can get a TON more space and thats what I really need now.

That SD thread idea is so retarded we shouldn't even discuss it. It's just assuming there's a 1:1 relationship between seek time and partition size which not only ignores rotational latency but also assumes mechanical devices can get infinitely fast when moving a small distance, there's going to be a minimum for the non-rotational part of seek times as long as the drive is mechnical.