# which drive is better?



## Fitseries3 (Oct 19, 2008)

Im getting a new drive for my main rig this week. 

i'd say speed doesnt matter but you can see by my choices it sorta does. a raptor wont be in play this time.

which drive would be better...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148316

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148335

keep in mind that i am currently only using 103gb so a huge drive would not benefit me at all especially seeing how i have my 1tb drive in the same machine.

speed and performance are the only 2 factors in question here.

one more thing... price is no object here.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 19, 2008)

i just wanted to say thanks to all you guys who helped me decide which drive to get.


----------



## Kursah (Oct 19, 2008)

Alright there trigger, let's see if we can getcha sorted. If both are similar speeds, and you don't need a larger drive, then there's no true point to going with the 640GB model w/2 320GB platters, get the single platter 320GB and be happy.



EDIT:

Better idea...get two of the 320GB drives and RAID them...cheap speed and performance! As to how fast, I dunno...I don't really pay too much attention to my HDD speeds as long as my games load quickly I'm happy, but you...you're a man that has the need, the need for speed. Might as well go the RAID route!


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 19, 2008)

but the 640 has 32mb cache over the 320 with only 16mb

im trying to NOT do a raid.


----------



## Kursah (Oct 19, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> but the 640 has 32mb cache over the 320 with only 16mb



And my 640GB drive is on par with the Seagate using half the cache...if it's a feature war you want, then get the one with more goodies, in the end in this arena the drives perform so close it's almost rediculous, though I do believe the WD 640AAKS is a little faster on average...


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 19, 2008)

i want to hear from a few other ppl before i decide.... not that i dont trust ya.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 20, 2008)

no one? jeez


----------



## Pinchy (Oct 20, 2008)

32MB cache makes little to no diff man. Well, real world performance anyway, I dnt know about benchmarks.

As Kursah said, you will probably benefit more from the single platter vs dual platter performance wise.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 20, 2008)

7200.11's suck 

The Western digital is fast!

The RMA rate on 7200.11's is horrific, I have sent back probably 50 500gb/750gb drives that are all less than 6 months old, read error issues, worse yet for your average joe trying to rma them, seagate will tell you they pass their tests and wont give you an rma number...


----------



## ktr (Oct 20, 2008)

What is the platter density difference between the two. More the better.


----------



## Pinchy (Oct 20, 2008)

My WD SE16's are nice and quick


----------



## Wile E (Oct 20, 2008)

Why no VelociRaptors if price isn't an object?


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 20, 2008)

i don't see some real different, but better chose 640 , if look for speed got raptor


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 20, 2008)

i have raptors already. thats what im swapping out. 

my main rig is for net and general purpose stuff. i dont need a lightning fast drive.

looks like ima get the WD640aaks


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 20, 2008)

Access times are more than likely the same, so unless your moving 1 file that's huge over and over you won't see a difference.


Buy 4 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148335
And raid -o them lol


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 20, 2008)

my new build only allows for 2 hdd's max and i have the 1tb drive already. 

im swapping the 2x raptorX 150's out for a single drive.


----------



## DaMulta (Oct 20, 2008)

Access times are the MAIN thing that I look for in HDD. All else does not matter for the most part, because you can't tell the difference.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 21, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> Access times are the MAIN thing that I look for in HDD. All else does not matter for the most part, because you can't tell the difference.



Depends on what you are doing. If you move a lot of large files, sequential read and write is more important.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 21, 2008)

i got the WD 640AAKS.


----------



## freaksavior (Oct 21, 2008)

I know you already bought it but i hate wd, had several drives fail in a row (not like a few years im talking months)



niko084 said:


> 7200.11's suck
> 
> The Western digital is fast!
> 
> The RMA rate on 7200.11's is horrific, I have sent back probably 50 500gb/750gb drives that are all less than 6 months old, read error issues, worse yet for your average joe trying to rma them, seagate will tell you they pass their tests and wont give you an rma number...



Seriously!? i have 2 of them and there great long time.

the wd i have was an rma straight from wd. 

every time i got wd rma'd it.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Oct 21, 2008)

i have used 100s of drives from each brand... samsung, maxtor, seagate, WD, fujitsu, and many others. the only 2 that i can trust more than 6months are WD and seagate. 

my seagate drives have always ran silent and have had no signs of giving up. they are covered by a 5yr warranty but i'd rather just not have the drive die at all because the data is more important.

WD makes great highspeed drives for ppl like me. however... i have had to RMA a few WDs over the past few years so they are my 2nd choice. 

one thing to think about is my practices with hard drives....

i only keep drives for about 8-12months tops before swapping them for a new drive. this almost eliminates any chance of failure while in use(by me of course). i know it sounds dumb but i have not lost anything yet.

the drives i use for my bench rig hardly seen constant use at all. any a few hours a week max.
the drives in my main rig are on 24/7 from the day i get them till the day i sell them.


----------



## niko084 (Oct 21, 2008)

freaksavior said:


> I know you already bought it but i hate wd, had several drives fail in a row (not like a few years im talking months)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do deal with probably around 50-75 a month of those drives alone.
Granted they normally get beat on pretty good, but even Seagate says they are having issues, especially on first release.

Now granted they have the 5 yr warranty which is nice. I despise the 7200.10's, they overheat really easily unless you have decent airflow.

I'm also one that will only buy WD or Seagate, although I am getting a bit curious about Samsung, I do like Maxtors scsi drives, but that's a different story.


----------



## Pinchy (Oct 21, 2008)

@ Fit, whats wrong with Samsung drives? Their DVD drives are horrible, they die straight after warranty ends...but they are also like $20 AUD.

To date though, I have not had one samsung hdd fail on me in any build I have used. Even in my matx rig, the drives are on top of each other in a hot case and dont get *that* much airflow, and I have not had probs yet *touch wood*


----------



## mullered07 (Oct 21, 2008)

Kursah said:


> And my 640GB drive is on par with the Seagate using half the cache...if it's a feature war you want, then get the one with more goodies, in the end in this arena the drives perform so close it's almost rediculous, though I do believe the WD 640AAKS is a little faster on average...



this is true theres only one single drive faster than me for avereage read in the hdtune thread, its a velociraptor, get a wd6400aaks, they are wicked fast


----------



## niko084 (Oct 21, 2008)

The guys on cdfreaks tend to say the Samsung drives are the best by far...
I have had no issues with them yet, at least not their newer stuff.

As for their hard drives, they just haven't been around long enough, they don't have a history for high quality drives.


----------



## Pinchy (Oct 21, 2008)

niko084 said:


> The guys on cdfreaks tend to say the Samsung drives are the best by far...
> I have had no issues with them yet, at least not their newer stuff.



They are good when they work ....but I have had around 15 die on me like a year after I got them. Mind you there are lots more that have worked fine, but you tend to remember the ones that die on you for longer lol. 

I cant really comment on their newer drives b/c it hasnt been a year since I have put one of them into a build ^_^


----------



## philbrown23 (Oct 21, 2008)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO seagate is evil


----------

