• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

WD6400AAKS vs WD6401AALS

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
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

dja2k
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    83.5 KB · Views: 985
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    118.2 KB · Views: 976
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    88.1 KB · Views: 979
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    120.1 KB · Views: 975
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Switching from Vista to Windows 7, the results have improved!

dja2k
 

Attachments

  • 11-24-2009 5-33-13 PM.png
    11-24-2009 5-33-13 PM.png
    48.3 KB · Views: 444
  • 11-24-2009 5-45-32 PM.png
    11-24-2009 5-45-32 PM.png
    27.8 KB · Views: 442
Back