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

Western Digital Caviar Black really that fast?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
I have the 750GB.

It's slightly slower on average than 640GB (a few MB/s).

I don't think it's fair to compare like this, though.

If you compare the fastest 640GB of the 750GB to the 640GB drive, the 750GB will probably be faster. I was going to get the 640GB, but the 750GB was on sale for just $1 more...

As for how fast, I haven't used a raptor, so I can't say, but it's... pretty fast :D.
 
I'm not sure how the 640/750's compare to the 1tb versions, but I have my benchmarks of my 1tb's.
 
hank123 said:
got some numbers you can put up plz
Click to expand...
This is 4 1tb Western Digital Blacks in a 500gb RAID 0 followed by a RAID 5 consuming the rest of the space. The throughput on the RAID 0 array is actually limited by my RAID card, not the disks themselves.

raid0.png


raid5.png
 
i went for a 500gb seagate 7200.12, those benchmarks in tomshardware shows that its the fastest drive next to velociraptor....
 
ciku said:
i went for a 500gb seagate 7200.12, those benchmarks in tomshardware shows that its the fastest drive next to velociraptor....
Click to expand...

ok should I do this or WD black and if WD black the 500 or 640? its gonna go in a raid 0 set up.

Thanks!

Is this the seagate your talking about?
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=HD-ST50S48

Man this makes it hard. bout the same price. only thing I would gain by the WD black is better access times. noting more i can tell. any reason I should not go with seagate?
 
Last edited:
Seagates get good read STR which makes them look good in simplistic low-level benchmarks like HDTach and HDTune. But they aren't balanced performance-wise and do much worse at writes, and in real-world application-based measurements are more often than not mediocre perfromers. The 7200.11 were like that and the 7200.12 didn't change it. Check techreport.com HD reviews, they always have a lot of drives listed.
 
MadMan007 said:
Seagates get good read STR which makes them look good in simplistic low-level benchmarks like HDTach and HDTune. But they aren't balanced performance-wise and do much worse at writes, and in real-world application-based measurements are more often than not mediocre perfromers. The 7200.11 were like that and the 7200.12 didn't change it. Check techreport.com HD reviews, they always have a lot of drives listed.
Click to expand...

Thanks madman for the heads up. Is this what your talking about?

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16472/1


man now I might be looking back at the black.

Ideas plz
 
Yeah that's one of the reviews that includes a 7200.12 and other drives. It just seems to me that Seagate makes their firmware lean heavily toward reads, either to be deceptive or that's just the best they can do, which is great for simplistic STR-type benchmarks but not so good for overall performance.
 
You won't be disappointed. I have both a 640GB and 500GB Caviar Black and love them both. 640GB achieving 103Mb/s average read speeds, not too bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nebulous
WD Black SN850 500GB x2 Raid-0
Replies
5
Views
911
Zerileous
Zerileous
c627627
Should I use M.2 Socket 3 or PCIe M.2 NVMe Adapter for boot drive?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
c627627
c627627
S
Raid 0 With 2 x nvme 4.0 drives
Replies
17
Views
5K
gregmacknass
gregmacknass
WrkBoot
Thinking of new build.
Replies
4
Views
514
WrkBoot
WrkBoot
c627627
Using a 16TB WD Gold mechanical hard drive with TLER on Desktop without RAID - downsides?
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
EarthDog
EarthDog
Back