hi everybody i would like to say that i am a computer builder .
latly i recived this hard drive 160G aajs with access time of minimum 20m\s
i am speaking for a wile with wd support. ill write soon for now i had 4 harddrive like that. Reply
You might want to put up pics that are consistent. When I saw the first pic on page one, the fist thing I noticed was that the four pin was still there, which surprised me. Pics on pages 1 & 12 show a four pin power connection on the drive while the page 2 pics clearly show a big hole where the four pin would be. Of course the text on page two says . . .
quote: The new SE family ships with the Serial ATA data and power connectors but drops support for the 4-pin Molex power connector designed for use with older ATX power supplies.
The press photos that WD sent us had the old casing for the open drive pictures. We really did not want to use them and WD was unable to provide new pics. I thought it was important to show the new platter design but certainly was not thrilled with using the old pictures. I will change them up today. Reply
Gary, are you thinking of including some ssds (slc and mlc) in the mix for future comparisons. also, are you planning on doing a raid article (again with ssds too) and see if raid edition drives make a difference. Reply
We will have a ssds roundup in March if the products are released on schedule. We will concentrate on SLC first as the MLC drive I do have is just terrible for general desktop usage. It was designed for industrial use and even I would not want to be a user at that workstation. ;) I am working on RAID article for March that will cover several chipsets and drives along with some new benchmarks. Reply
thanks!
the only reason i wanted to see an mlc drive in a roundup is to get an idea how bad they are but i get the picture now.
i wonder if the faster response of the ssds compensate for their lower transfer rates and beat hdds in general usage. i guess we'll find out in march. Reply
I should wait to see some numbers from the versions with 16MB cache sizes, but for me - this article reaffirms my choice of the Seagate 7200.10 320GB. Reply
I will have a short performance update to include the 74GB 16MB cache Raptor tomorrow, not a full article but enough results to draw a conclusion. Reply
18 Comments
Back to Article
orenlevy - Friday, November 09, 2007 - link
hi everybody i would like to say that i am a computer builder .latly i recived this hard drive 160G aajs with access time of minimum 20m\s
i am speaking for a wile with wd support. ill write soon for now i had 4 harddrive like that. Reply
fendell - Friday, May 04, 2007 - link
Any chance you could update this with the WD5000AAKS ?It is a great bargain atm :) Reply
DrMrLordX - Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - link
Any chance you could include the Hitachi T7k500 in reviews like this one? ReplyGary Key - Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - link
Yes, we will have the new/old WD and Hitachi 500GB drive results up in two weeks. ReplyDrMrLordX - Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - link
cool, thanks ReplyRike - Monday, February 05, 2007 - link
You might want to put up pics that are consistent. When I saw the first pic on page one, the fist thing I noticed was that the four pin was still there, which surprised me. Pics on pages 1 & 12 show a four pin power connection on the drive while the page 2 pics clearly show a big hole where the four pin would be. Of course the text on page two says . . .You might want to clear this one up.
Reply
Gary Key - Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - link
The press photos that WD sent us had the old casing for the open drive pictures. We really did not want to use them and WD was unable to provide new pics. I thought it was important to show the new platter design but certainly was not thrilled with using the old pictures. I will change them up today. Replynoxipoo - Monday, February 05, 2007 - link
if i wanted low noise and performance similar to this drive? ReplyAccord99 - Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - link
The WD5000AAKS (The AA is the important designation):http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool...">http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications...tails.as...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82... Reply
noxipoo - Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - link
boo, no 5 year warranty. Replysemo - Monday, February 05, 2007 - link
Gary, are you thinking of including some ssds (slc and mlc) in the mix for future comparisons. also, are you planning on doing a raid article (again with ssds too) and see if raid edition drives make a difference. ReplyGary Key - Monday, February 05, 2007 - link
Hi,We will have a ssds roundup in March if the products are released on schedule. We will concentrate on SLC first as the MLC drive I do have is just terrible for general desktop usage. It was designed for industrial use and even I would not want to be a user at that workstation. ;) I am working on RAID article for March that will cover several chipsets and drives along with some new benchmarks. Reply
oDii - Monday, February 05, 2007 - link
Gary, would it be possible along side the various chipsets to see how Linux Software RAID performs (http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-5.html">http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-5.html or XFS)? It'd be great to see the results in context, as I haven't been able to find a complete and reliable source of results. Replysemo - Monday, February 05, 2007 - link
thanks!the only reason i wanted to see an mlc drive in a roundup is to get an idea how bad they are but i get the picture now.
i wonder if the faster response of the ssds compensate for their lower transfer rates and beat hdds in general usage. i guess we'll find out in march. Reply
mostlyprudent - Monday, February 05, 2007 - link
I should wait to see some numbers from the versions with 16MB cache sizes, but for me - this article reaffirms my choice of the Seagate 7200.10 320GB. Replymjz - Monday, February 05, 2007 - link
i'm amazed that the raptor didn't do so good.. why couldn't they just combine the 160 platter with the 10000 rpm ReplyDrMrLordX - Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - link
I kinda agree, though the newer 74 gig Raptor w/ 16 meg cache is supposedly faster than the 150 gig Raptor.Personally I'd rather see the 74 gig Raptor in there, but . . . Reply
Gary Key - Tuesday, February 06, 2007 - link
I will have a short performance update to include the 74GB 16MB cache Raptor tomorrow, not a full article but enough results to draw a conclusion. Reply