WD500GB SATAIII

paradisiac · 14 Jul 2011 at 18:02

is the WD5000AAKX any good speed wise? does anyone have any tests (ideally crystalmark)?

Plec · 14 Jul 2011 at 19:31

If you're after optimum speed performance with Western Digital then you need to be looking at the 'Black' series.

paradisiac · 15 Jul 2011 at 09:43

Plec said:
If you're after optimum speed performance with Western Digital then you need to be looking at the 'Black' series.

im really more aiming to get rid of my raid setup, but without loosing a great deal of speed. although raid0 on the whole i havent noticed anything fantastic speed wise, when i did go to a single disc i found games were laggy. im not sure if that down to the drive being old a failing or just that things were better with the little bit of help speed wise.

paradisiac · 16 Jul 2011 at 09:47

would a Samsung HD103SJ Spinpoint F3 1TB Hard Drive SATAII 7200rpm 32MB Cache be quicker even though its only SATAII?

RJC · 16 Jul 2011 at 09:56

Mechanical hard discs can't saturate sata 2 let alone sata 3, you probably won't notice any performance difference between the 2 drives.

I run several Samsung F3 1tb drives and not had any issues

paradisiac · 16 Jul 2011 at 10:34

ok, dont have a pc here with any SATAIII sockets so can only do assume it will be a little bit faster maybe on SATIII?

my exisiting raid0

Samsung 1TB F3

WD5000AAKX (SATAII port not SATAIII)

i have no idea whats good or bad with these tests, other than i assume the bigger the number the better? can someone please explain if the WD500GB would be better in the SATAIII socket or does the F3 win in single drive (and its not a lot less than the RAID0)

Surveyor · 16 Jul 2011 at 11:01

paradisiac said:
can someone please explain if the WD500GB would be better in the SATAIII socket or does the F3 win in single drive (and its not a lot less than the RAID0)

Plugging a mechanical HDD into a SATA 2 or SATA 3 port makes absolutely no difference as RJC explained above.

SATA 2 has a maximum transfer rate of 300MB/s and none of the drives you tested come anywhere close to this.

Plugging them into a SATA 3 port makes no difference as the disk is the limiting factor not the interface.

Plec · 16 Jul 2011 at 11:16

paradisiac said:
im really more aiming to get rid of my raid setup, but without loosing a great deal of speed. although raid0 on the whole i havent noticed anything fantastic speed wise, when i did go to a single disc i found games were laggy. im not sure if that down to the drive being old a failing or just that things were better with the little bit of help speed wise.

I'm not the biggest fan of RAID0 for some of the reasons you've highlighted above - but also because of the added risk of data corruption, and the additional worry of depending on 2 disks for your data etc...

Personally, i use mostly WD drives as their warranty service is excellent (especially their premium rma service). The Black editions are fast and responsive - but it's relative to what you are/were using before.

The 500Gb WDs (green, blue and black) only use a single platter – so spin up time will be faster – and therefore feel 'slighly' more responsive. Plus, they’re also quieter than multi-plattered hdds.

As mentioned with your new setup you will be able to use the SATA 6gb - but as RJC has stated you wont notice any performance gain for reasons already stated.

I also use samsungs F3s - they too have a great rma service.

paradisiac · 16 Jul 2011 at 11:44

so out of the 2 i benchtested, the samsung F3 will be the quickest (and biggest) drive so the best one to go for?

Surveyor · 16 Jul 2011 at 11:51

Yes, though as you can see there isn't a great deal of difference between the Samsung 1TB F3 and the WD5000AAKX.

The WD Blacks are expensive for what they offer. £70 for 1TB, compared to £45 for the Samsung, and they aren't noticeably faster.

paradisiac · 16 Jul 2011 at 11:57

Surveyor said:
Yes, though as you can see there isn't a great deal of difference between the Samsung 1TB F3 and the WD5000AAKX.

The WD Blacks are expensive for what they offer. £70 for 1TB, compared to £45 for the Samsung, and they aren't noticeably faster.

both the drives i have here are under £25 each

i dont want anything stupidly fast as i would like to get an SSD at some point, but fast enough to keep me going, and then use as an installation drive when i do get an SSD.

Surveyor · 16 Jul 2011 at 12:01

paradisiac said:
both the drives i have here are under £25 each

Er.... Congratulations.

paradisiac · 16 Jul 2011 at 12:03

Surveyor said:
Er.... Congratulations.

i didnt mean it like that, i just meant, they are both considerably cheaper than the WD Black drives, so that kinda rules them out.

Plec · 16 Jul 2011 at 12:55

You'll be happy with the F3s - they're a great hdd for the money and their rma is based in the UK so returns usually take approx week (i should know i'm on my 3rd/4th replacement for one of my F3s :/)

paradisiac · 16 Jul 2011 at 12:59

Plec said:
You'll be happy with the F3s - they're a great hdd for the money and their rma is based in the UK so returns usually take approx week (i should know i'm on my 3rd/4th replacement for one of my F3s :/)

ok kool (although sooo many replacements indicate its not a reliable drive?). think i will grab one of these before we sell out today

raised the money for my SA, just got to wait til monday to order as im off all day tues to be around for delivery

Plec · 16 Jul 2011 at 13:13

paradisiac said:
although sooo many replacements indicate its not a reliable drive

No, the forums/web don't indicate this (i checked) - it seems i've just been unlucky.

Plus the replacements are reconditioned drives - so sometimes the original fault is overlooked, as two hdds have had identical faults. But Samsung have paid for all my p&p since the first replacement so it's no biggie - especially as it's one of my spare drives.

paradisiac · 16 Jul 2011 at 18:35

just run the test on my Raid0 drive with my SB build and the results seem to of improved a lot. so will stick with it until i can afford an SSd