Fastest HDD for under £60?

Robert1986 · 30 Sep 2008 at 20:00

I'm looking to replace my current HDD with a faster one but I'm out of the loop with which is faster,better ect.

My current HDD - 500GB Western Digital Enterprise 16MB Cache SATA-2 Hard Drive

What would be a good replacement for under £60.

Thanks.

jbloggs · 30 Sep 2008 at 20:08

WD 640AAKS...Mine gives me 97MB/s (Average read) in HDTach....

Grimley · 30 Sep 2008 at 20:10

It should be the samung equivalent but its OOS. I've got this one instead & I think you'll find that there will be few that will say there are quicker for the money (unless you go for the the 320gig version instead)

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...ue 640GB SATA-II 16MB Cache - OEM (WD6400AAKS)

marcus_667 · 30 Sep 2008 at 20:10

or one of the samsung spinpoint f1s tbh

-Ad- · 30 Sep 2008 at 22:43

jbloggs said:
WD 640AAKS...Mine gives me 97MB/s (Average read) in HDTach....

Was wondering the same, thought about *** BLACK on offer atm but it is expensive for only 320gb. But then thought about the RE3, but still a single platter 320gb for about 350.

Would the difference between say an RE3 and this blue be noticable in general file moving and gaming ?

Im coming from a dieing and freezing samsung P80.

jbloggs · 1 Oct 2008 at 09:33

-Ad- said:
Was wondering the same, thought about *** BLACK on offer atm but it is expensive for only 320gb. But then thought about the RE3, but still a single platter 320gb for about 350.

Would the difference between say an RE3 and this blue be noticable in general file moving and gaming ?

Both the RE 320GB and 640AAKS use 320GB platters, so I would think there is little or no difference in performance between them, where the extra cost of the RE3 goes to is in its 5 year warranty and 1.2 million hours MTBF, in contrast to the 3 year warranty and shorter MTBF (750,000 hours I think) of the 640AAKS....I don't think you would notice any difference in file moving or gaming performance.

-Ad- · 1 Oct 2008 at 12:09

jbloggs said:
Both the RE 320GB and 640AAKS use 320GB platters, so I would think there is little or no difference in performance between them, where the extra cost of the RE3 goes to is in its 5 year warranty and 1.2 million hours MTBF, in contrast to the 3 year warranty and shorter MTBF (750,000 hours I think) of the 640AAKS....I don't think you would notice any difference in file moving or gaming performance.

Cheers for that, has made me happier in my choice. Went for the 640AAKS as it has the 16mb cache, plus costs under £50, less than the RE3 and twice the size.

Need a bigger HDD to fill with pr0n

Now, to use the AAKS as the Gaming + Apps + storage drive, or the windows + storage drive..... Hmmmmm ?

Tombo · 1 Oct 2008 at 19:45

Windows, gaming and storage drive.

-Ad- · 2 Oct 2008 at 13:40

Tombo said:
Windows, gaming and storage drive.

Bah, I always thought it was better to put games + applications on a different drive to windows, and it is something I have done for a few years now.

All I'm wanting is the best performance, and thought that with windows and games+apps split up then the 2 HDDs could work at the same time, as *** windows HDD will always be accessing ??????

pjansell · 2 Oct 2008 at 13:41

I'd go with the F1 very happy with my terabyte one, no problems to date and fast as you like.

C64 · 2 Oct 2008 at 17:56

No it's better to have application and games on the same drive as operating system in my view and don't bother with a partition.
Have tried adding a partition for windows and having apps and games seperate and didn't notice any difference in fact I could swear it was worse.
And all work unraring deleting etc etc to be done on seperate drives.