Which 640gb ?

Mr.Bon · 5 Jun 2008 at 00:13

1tb huh? mhmmmmm

John24 · 5 Jun 2008 at 02:08

Dougiebabe2003 said:
Very happy bunny now

Glad to hear it

Slackworth said:
Nope. 320GB platters only. You have to remember that 320GB is now considered a low end drive now so vendors are not pushing the top end performance technology into them so people buy 1TB etc.

Thanks Slackworth, yepp it was hopefull. Just want a fast small drive for the OS because I/O contention is starting to be an issue.

marscay · 5 Jun 2008 at 02:23

John24 said:
Yes, I know. What I`m asking is if there will be a single platter 320GB drive that uses the new 334GB density platter. Can`t put it simpler than that.

My WD640 purchased from OC on 28 March 2008

HD Tune OS Drive

HD Tach Short OS Drive

My 640 AAKS

Your burst looks a little low, write cache enabled??

John24 · 6 Jun 2008 at 00:19

It`s running at sata150 (old mobo)

Atom · 6 Jun 2008 at 09:02

Here is my 640gb Samsung F1 I have just installed.

Not impressed with the seek on it. Rather dissapointed.

gurusan · 6 Jun 2008 at 09:44

Did you run the test more than once? That is a horrible random access time, I would be dissapointed too, so dissapointed that I would probably RMA it or exchange it or something. Pretty sure it's not supposed to be that high.

clocka · 6 Jun 2008 at 14:39

burst speed is awful too, there are probably some settings you need to change i reckon.

Atom · 7 Jun 2008 at 10:52

Yes I ran the test more than once. HDTune is returning 18.9ms. Think will return it under DSR.

lmfy2k · 10 Jul 2008 at 15:43

after reading this thread, im still no wiser to knowing which one is better

what do i buy?

the 640gb samsung f1 or the WD6400AAKS ?

oTTo · 10 Jul 2008 at 20:29

lmfy2k said:
after reading this thread, im still no wiser to knowing which one is better

what do i buy?

the 640gb samsung f1 or the WD6400AAKS ?

I was the original starter of this thread and could not decide what to get for aaages. Ordered the WD yesterday morning and it was delivered today.

Not sure how to set my drives up, still haven't decided. I also bought a 2nd Raptor today of members market. Now got - 2x74gb Raptors (maybe try RAID0 as op system boot drive), WD5000aaks (might sell on members market) , WD6400aaks.

Moeks · 12 Jul 2008 at 14:54

I bought the Samsung drive the other day, ran HD Tune 3 times on the drive, all the results were more or less the same, except the first run was very 'peaky'. The drive has been setup and running for around a week now and it is the OS drive, I did a fresh defrag with Diskeeper 2008 before I ran any tests also. I am wondering why my burst is so low though, everything else looks about right other than the access time being a little low, but the burst, as you can see, is hardly any higher than the max sustained transfer speed.

Just as a point of interest I just ran HD Tune on a couple of 2 year old Seagate Barracuda 10 320GB hard drives I have in the same system, these drives are almost totally full, there is less than 10GB of free space left on both of them, and are likely badly fragmented by now. None the less, the results (which were both very similar) make for curious viewing, please note the burst speed and access times. I'm wondering if this has anything to do with the fact that the Samsung is my OS drive though?

Space Monkey · 12 Jul 2008 at 14:59

Moeks said:
I bought the Samsung drive the other day, ran HD Tune 3 times on the drive, all the results were more or less the same, except the first run was very 'peaky'. The drive has been setup and running for around a week now an it is the OS drive, I did a fresh defrag with Diskeeper 2008 before I ran any tests also. I am wondering why my burst is so low though, everything else looks about right other than the access time being a little low, but the burst, as you can see, is hardly any higher than the max sustained transfer speed.

I have been getting the distinct impression that they have changed the drives specs from the early originals, they get people going and build up the hype then change down!