# 7200.12 or aaks?



## Fitseries3 (May 18, 2009)

which is faster?

WD 640aaks or seagate 7200.12?

i need to know asap


----------



## DarkEgo (May 18, 2009)

7200.12 is faster in mb/s, but has a slower access time.


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 18, 2009)

how much we talkin here?

it will be used as an OS drive and needs to load benchmark data fast as possible


----------



## DarkEgo (May 18, 2009)

Then I would sugest the 640 AALS. That is the fastest all arround.


----------



## freaksavior (May 18, 2009)

i got a .12 and it's fast. very nice drive. 
not a fan of wd though.


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 18, 2009)

DarkEgo said:


> Then I would sugest the 640 AALS. That is the fastest all arround.



is that the WD black?

honestly.. i dont need size, i need speed. what is the FASTEST 7200rpm sata drive right now?


----------



## LittleLizard (May 18, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> is that the WD black?
> 
> honestly.. i dont need size, i need speed. what is the FASTEST 7200rpm sata drive right now?



wow, easy fits, dont get mad, IMO, the fatest is the seagate 7200.12 as is single platter in its 500gb iteration.


----------



## DarkEgo (May 18, 2009)

http://www.xcpus.com/reviews/123-Seagate-Barracuda-720012-500GB-Drive-Review-ST3500410AS-Page-3.aspx
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16472
7200.12's have shitty access times. Because of that the Caviar black is probably your best bet.


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 18, 2009)

i have BOTH 2x aaks and 7200.12  in 2 raid 0

the 7200.12s have a much higher mbps transfer rate, but they are a lot slower in access time. somthing like .12 vs .16 iirc

i would go the aaks drives if i was going to buy any more, just had one of the 7200.12s fail 1 month after i got it due to a power surge.


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 18, 2009)

well the aals 500gb seems to have 32mb cache. it does look pretty quick but its $10 more than the seagates.

im finding the 500gb 7200.12's for $57


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 18, 2009)

go the aaks drives imo. there fast with lowish latency.


will try to find benchmarks if i have them of both drives vs eachother.



just relised they got deleted when i formated my ssd , iirc the aaks drives pushed 180-200 mbps @ 12ms

wile the 7200.12s did 220-260 tops @ 15-17ms.

both in raid zero that is.


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 18, 2009)

is the AALS really 32mb cache for the 500gb?

i need a review on it.


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 18, 2009)

not really a review but i found this http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1364978

yes the aals has 32mb of cache



even better direct comparison between aaks and aals

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=5888537


----------



## fire2havoc (May 19, 2009)

+1 for Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB WD6401AALS


----------



## _jM (May 19, 2009)

Speaking from personal experiences... Go for the AAks .. Here's a screenshot of  2XWD 500AAKS in ASUS speeding HDD and they are screaming fast bro 






And here is the exact model I have:  (the 500AAKS Version )





EDIT: Go for the "WD Black" versions and you will get better read times and a little better latency


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 19, 2009)

i got the seagate 7200.12. it was $20 cheaper and has higher throughput.

i DONT want a raid. i've been running raids for years.


----------



## Psychoholic (May 19, 2009)

the lower latency is what gives that zippy feeling in the OS.

I'd definately take a little lower throughput for slightly lower latency, especially if it was less than a 10mb difference.


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 19, 2009)

well price is also a big consideration. i need to save every $ i can. i couldnt justify the extra $20


----------



## r9 (May 19, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> well price is also a big consideration. i need to save every $ i can. i couldnt justify the extra $20



Fit can`t justify 20$ 
The guy who spends that much money on hardware


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 19, 2009)

you forget that i get alot of stuff half price or even free...


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 19, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> you forget that i get alot of stuff half price or even free...



How, where and why?

Also i am going to be getting a 500GB WD black aaks, but then Ebuyer just sent me an email saying that the Samsung F1 1TB was down to £60 which is stupidly cheap seeing as the WD is like £45. So yea which should i go for here? Only posting here because you people seem to know everything.


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 19, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> you forget that i get alot of stuff half price or even free...



you also make sure to get the better hardware and not skimp. if you're really looking for the fastest desktop drive you know what you need to get.


----------



## mlee49 (May 19, 2009)

You wont be let down by the 7200.12.  Seagate makes quality drives and the Baracuda's are uber fast.  Dont get me wrong I have dual 320AAk's but I also came straight from a barracuda and personally would go back to Seagate, even more so at $20 less a drive.


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 21, 2009)




----------



## angelkiller (May 22, 2009)

HDTune/HDTach it and look at the access time....


----------



## Studabaker (May 22, 2009)

i know this thread is old and solved but i just wanted to say that going RAID increases access times (mine is 16ms) so its kind of pointless to say get the drives with the faster access time and then RAID them.  also there is an HD Tune thread just for this type of question


----------



## angelkiller (May 22, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> going RAID increases access times (mine is 16ms) so its kind of pointless to say get the drives with the faster access time and then RAID them.  also there is an HD Tune thread just for this type of question


?

If Raid 0 increases access times, why would you pick the slower pair of drives? Lets say drive A has 10ms access time and drive B had 14ms access time. If Raid 0 adds, say, 1ms, why would you not pick the 10 ms drives? Drive A Raid 0 would have 11ms access time and Drive B Raid 0 would have 15ms access time.

From what I've read, the performance hit on access time is minimal (less than .5ms) and is easily outweighed by the huge throughput boost.

I know what the access time is. I personally think the AAKS was a better choice due to this drive's rather high access time.


----------



## Studabaker (May 22, 2009)

angelkiller said:


> ?
> If Raid 0 increases access times, why would you pick the slower pair of drives? Lets say drive A has 10ms access time and drive B had 14ms access time. If Raid 0 adds, say, 1ms, why would you not pick the 10 ms drives? Drive A Raid 0 would have 11ms access time and Drive B Raid 0 would have 15ms access time.



Right, I sort of caught myself on that one too.. but he doesn't want RAID anyway and that's the final point.


----------



## Fitseries3 (May 22, 2009)

no raid and cheaper is better.


----------



## thebeephaha (May 24, 2009)

I know you got a drive, but for anyone else...

Here is a 7200.12 vs an AA_L_S black edition which cost me about the same.










I have an AA_K_S but it is a different size so comparison won't be the same.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 5, 2009)

well aparently someone ratted me out to WD about this thread and my choice of the seagate over the aaks.

i got an email from a rep at WD asking if i wish to try one of their drives. they said for a direct comparison they would send me a 500gb aaks to compare to the seagate 7200.12 500gb i purchased from newegg.

so yeah....

here it is...






believe me... im in awe.


----------



## angelkiller (Jun 5, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> well aparently someone ratted me out to WD about this thread and my choice of the seagate over the aaks.
> 
> i got an email from a rep at WD asking if i wish to try one of their drives.



That's really awesome! I wish a company would send *ME* free stuff for comparisons.


----------



## freaksavior (Jun 5, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> well aparently someone ratted me out to WD about this thread and my choice of the seagate over the aaks.
> 
> i got an email from a rep at WD asking if i wish to try one of their drives. they said for a direct comparison they would send me a 500gb aaks to compare to the seagate 7200.12 500gb i purchased from newegg.
> 
> ...





 bench bench bench bench bench bench


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jun 5, 2009)

to teh bench!


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 5, 2009)

dude that fukin roolz.


----------



## DOM (Jun 5, 2009)

you know the only thing a fast hd helps is in pcmark's

i do mine benching on a SAMSUNG SpinPoint P Series160GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb 


so if the rep at WD wants to send me one ill be more then happy to see if it helps lol


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 5, 2009)

DOM said:


> you know the only thing a fast hd helps is in pcmark's
> 
> i do mine benching on a SAMSUNG SpinPoint P Series160GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb
> 
> ...



Ehhh not really, some HDs destroy other HDs' performance.  And they're the last component in our systems that is a constant and serious bottleneck.


----------



## DOM (Jun 5, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> Ehhh not really, some HDs destroy other HDs' performance.  And they're the last component in our systems that is a constant and serious bottleneck.




for benching ? i use to use a ide hd


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 5, 2009)

DOM said:


> for benching ? i use to use a ide hd



No you said they only help in benching.  I said they help in system performance.  They greatly, GREATLY help in system performance.  Most of the time spent waiting on a computer is data transfer time.  Hard disks are the biggest bottleneck we've got left.


----------



## DOM (Jun 5, 2009)

lol thats what he wanted it for, did you read the thread  post #3


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 5, 2009)

im still starving for ssds again. you just cant come close to that feeling with regular hdds


----------



## DOM (Jun 5, 2009)

i wish i had one


----------



## REVHEAD (Jun 6, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> well aparently someone ratted me out to WD about this thread and my choice of the seagate over the aaks.
> 
> i got an email from a rep at WD asking if i wish to try one of their drives. they said for a direct comparison they would send me a 500gb aaks to compare to the seagate 7200.12 500gb i purchased from newegg.
> 
> ...



so were is the comparo Fit? your very slow considering WD gave you the disk for that very reason.


----------



## HellasVagabond (Jun 6, 2009)

I just benched the 1TB WD Caviar Black ( FALS ), the 1TB WD Caviar Green ( EADS ) and the 1TB Barracuda 7200.12.
Most of you know where to head to see that, the rest who may be interested check my profile 

PS : Did not have dual pieces so i did not bench them in RAID...Sorry for dissapointing some of you....


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 6, 2009)

been busy working on a review and today is pretty much gone to an event. i'll get to it sometime tonight though.


----------



## REVHEAD (Jun 7, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> been busy working on a review and today is pretty much gone to an event. i'll get to it sometime tonight though.



 Sweet.


----------



## stormseeker (Jun 7, 2009)

I see bunch of nonsense here.

I doubt 5000AAKS can beat 7200.12 Cuda, because 5000AAKS uses 250GB platters, and 12 Cuda uses 500GB ones. 6400AAKS is better than 5000AAKS and it uses 320GB platters, so it's more comparable in speed to 12 Cuda. Please check TechReport's HDD reviews (IMO best HDD reviews on the net), I don't want to talk more on this topic, everything is explained in their articles.  WD6400AAKS (Caviar Blue 640GB) drives are unbeatable for the price.


----------



## HellasVagabond (Jun 7, 2009)

Well i did not have an Blue 1TB ( i do have a 500GB ) drive but the Black did beat the 7200.12 by a small margin. The Green on the other hand was the last of the bunch although it did output some burst read results better than both the black and the 7200.12.
In any case the Black is the best but it is about 10$(5E) more expensive than the 7200.12.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 7, 2009)




----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 7, 2009)

7200.12 takes it.


----------



## wolf2009 (Jun 7, 2009)

haha no competition, what was that rep thinking. Putting up a 2x 250 GB platter drive against a 1x 500 GB platter drive.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 7, 2009)

he said i could do whatever i want with it when im done.

anyone want it?

i need something thats at least 2x as fast


----------



## DOM (Jun 7, 2009)

want the WD ?


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 7, 2009)

What like, for free? LOL.

I've been wanting a backup drive, and I had that one in mind...


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 7, 2009)

sorry guys... nothing is free. 

i spent most of the day reviewing this drive so i pretty much earned it.

PM me if you really want it.


----------



## InTeL-iNsIdE (Jun 7, 2009)

man my wd6400aaks kicks ass, i get 101mbps transfer rate and it feels snappy as anything, hoping to raid 0 it on the next couple of weeks


----------



## lisburnni (Jun 8, 2009)

hands its arse on a plate 

i have two of these in raid 0 as an OS drive and they are fantastically fast 

[url]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/8679/hdtunebenchmarkintelrai.png[/URL]

[url]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/2761/raid32kb1.png[/URL]

 i believe the spikes are the drive being accessed as its under test


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 8, 2009)

true true...

but 

im still getting more ssds.

a single ocz vertex can do 250mb/s average read and 200mb/s write. in raid they can do 2x that.


----------



## lisburnni (Jun 8, 2009)

sell me your old ssds when done fella  

stephen


----------



## HellasVagabond (Jun 8, 2009)

I also have plenty of SSDs here, they are great but still the capacities are no match for normal drives, so for backup and games i vote normal HDDs...Still for OS SSDs win by default


----------



## freaksavior (Jun 8, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/090607/Capture273.jpg





Fitseries3 said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/090607/Capture274.jpg
> 
> 7200.12 takes it.



just by a litte 

seagate ftw


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 8, 2009)

Longevity over speed, I say. These WDs are solid.


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 8, 2009)

Yeah, I'd rather have two slower WDs than two faster Seagates in RAID0 any day?  Why?  I trust WD, they've never failed me, but I've had to change out so many Seagates, why would I complain when people who pay me to work on their comps replace their Seagates with other Seagates?  In a year or two, I'll be comin back for more work


----------



## angelkiller (Jun 8, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> Yeah, I'd rather have two slower WDs than two faster Seagates in RAID0 any day?  Why?  I trust WD, they've never failed me, but I've had to change out so many Seagates, why would I complain when people who pay me to work on their comps replace their Seagates with other Seagates?  In a year or two, I'll be comin back for more work


No offense to you and your experiences but I've heard the same thing about all hdd manufacturers.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 8, 2009)

angelkiller said:


> No offense to you and your experiences but I've heard the same thing about all hdd manufacturers.



It depends on what time frame people are talking about. Each manufacturer had series or years where the drives were great. But then everything goes downhill. Maxtor, the worst drives ever made were apparently good in the beginning. I know old Seagates are excellent. You can find those and WDs that are 10+ yrs old still running strong. I remember seagate having a great reputation just 2-3 yrs ago and now I hear they're failing left and right.
I don't put stock in toshiba drives. I've seen them fail all too often in laptops, but I do think that's from the heat b/c dell and other are retarded. Don't even get me started on quantum, especially the fireballs. They were called that for a reason lol.

But all in all only WD has stood the test of time for me. They do produce some bad series of drives, but I just check the reviews out and it's blatantly clear which ones fail (plus never use the ones with lots of platters).


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 8, 2009)

angelkiller said:


> No offense to you and your experiences but I've heard the same thing about all hdd manufacturers.



No offense taken, after all, you say you've HEARD the same thing about all HDD manufacturers, but I've actually DEALT with it.


----------



## angelkiller (Jun 8, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> No offense taken, after all, you say you've HEARD the same thing about all HDD manufacturers, but I've actually DEALT with it.


I've heard from people that have dealt with it...

Here's my take on hdd reliability. I don't really care. Why? I think Seagate and WD have gained enough knowledge to make a hard drive that will last a long time. I think because of the hdd's design, it is inevitable that a certain percentage will fail. But I think if you did a large study at any point in time, the difference in failed drives of Seagate vs the failed drives of WD would be extremely tiny. So small that the difference would be insignificant. So I don't really take reliability into account when I buy a hard drive. I just think that there's a certain percentage that it will fail, whether it be WD or Seagate. But admittingly, I have no data to back this up. But, as long as I backup my data, a drive failure is nothing more than an inconvenience anyway.

But that's just my 2 cents.


----------



## Dice (Jun 10, 2009)

This is exactly what ive been looking for, but im still confused.

I've been looking into setting up a raid0 system drive, my first attempt at raid, and im still unsure what to get.  The drive will be used for Vista, Games and applications, I'll keep all my media and files on my current disk, a WD black 1T.

Initially i thought I'd go with the segate as it had some good reviews and was a 500GB platter. Then i started looking at benchmarks posted around the web at for the most part the WD Black was getting far better seek times and aplication loading, exactly what is important for what i want right??

also the WD has 5 year warnty, I know all electronics have a cerain degree of failier risk but I had a 7200.10 die on me last year and then there was the .11 thang.:shadedshu

So how come when Fits does it the seagate kills the WD???  would having the larger platter of the 640 make much difference?  I had all but decided to go with 2 640 wd blacks and then I see this and im at a loss again.....


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 10, 2009)

640gb has dual 320gb platters like the 7200.12

wd 500 aaks has dual 250gb platters hence why its slower

wd 500 aals has dual 320gb platters and should be as fast as the 640gb becuase its the same drive as the 640 it just uses 1 less side of a platter.


----------



## filip007 (Jun 10, 2009)

Why not Samsung Spinpont F1 642JJ this one have 320GB plates?

This is Raid0...


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 10, 2009)

i have owned 7 samys and every single one has died in 4 months or less. they dont even exist in my world.


----------



## Dice (Jun 10, 2009)

my bad didn't check your WD drive close enough.  which would you recommend 2*7200.12 or 2*AALS?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 10, 2009)

segates have always lasted longer for me. until recently they also had longer warranty but thats not something i ever have to worry about.

for me, i like ssds. NOTHING can come close to the speed of ssds.

maybe you can raid 8 regular drives and get better speed than 1-2 ssds and have tons more space but i dont need space and i certainly dont have space for 8x 3.5" hdds. 1-2 ssds are smaller than a single 3.5" hdd


----------



## Dice (Jun 10, 2009)

I cant affrod ssd's yet, when the price per GB comes down a bit more maybe but for now a couple of cheep hdd's is the way I think.


----------



## Sihastru (Jun 10, 2009)

A 10-20MB/s difference in transfer rate is not that important, but 12ms compared to 16ms access time is very important. IO/s is also important.

So the nice curves on all these graphs are irrelevant. If you can get the drive to 140MB/s at a 16ms random access time, it still looses overall to a drive that can do 120MB/s at a 12ms random access time.

I repeat, *ms* is key and not *MB/s*, especially when the MB/s are so close.


----------



## angelkiller (Jun 10, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> 640gb has dual 320gb platters like the 7200.12



I thought the 7200.12 had 1 500gb platter...


----------



## Ramo1203 (Jun 10, 2009)

I'm currently looking for a fast HDD and well I did some research. Did you know that there are 2 Version of the WD5001AALS. The WD5001AALS-00L3B and the WD5001AALS-00L3B*2*

Take a look at the Benchmarks :

- WD5001AALS-00L3B 
http://img.donanimhaber.com/image.aspx/upfiles/177895/3CBD45E976AB467F9819A5863C373C05.jpg

- WD5001AALS-00L3B2
http://i0903.hizliresim.com/2009/3/29/1133.jpg 

The same thing happend with the WD3200AAKS, there were 2 revisions. One with 2x160 and one with 1x320. The WD5001AALS-00L3B2 is the single platter design.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 10, 2009)

angelkiller said:


> I thought the 7200.12 had 1 500gb platter...



thats what i meant to say lol. half asleep when i wrote that


----------



## angelkiller (Jun 10, 2009)

Ramo1203 said:


> I'm currently looking for a fast HDD and well I did some research. Did you know that there are 2 Version of the WD5001AALS. The WD5001AALS-00L3B and the WD5001AALS-00L3B*2*
> 
> Take a look at the Benchmarks :
> 
> ...


I hate WD for doing that. I sent my single platter WD3200AAKS in for RMA because it had some bad sectors and I got a dual platter back. Then WD support said there is no difference.  IMO the # of platters is a significant enough change that deserves a change in model number, not just the suffix. Especially when retailers don't advertise the suffix. You really gotta do research before you gamble on one of WD's many variants of the same freakin drive. Thanks for pointing out that issue with those drives too.



Fitseries3 said:


> thats what i meant to say lol. half asleep when i wrote that


Np.


----------



## Ramo1203 (Jun 10, 2009)

Yeah WD needs to work on this issue, it's really annoying since it's almost the same thing with most their drives. The 1TB, 500GB and 320GB have this issue, the 640GB is a safe buy since it's without a doubt 2x320, however if you can get the 500 with single platter, it's even better than the 640GB. 

I had a PC running 2x500GB Seagate 7200.12, really fast but I prefer WD, the latest Firmware story with Seagate is not very reassuring even if they fixed it.

Here's a good read on 640GB HDD's : http://xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/640gb-hdd-roundup.html


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 10, 2009)

Ramo1203 said:


> I'm currently looking for a fast HDD and well I did some research. Did you know that there are 2 Version of the WD5001AALS. The WD5001AALS-00L3B and the WD5001AALS-00L3B*2*
> 
> Take a look at the Benchmarks :
> 
> ...



Does this apply to WD2500AAKS?  I thought I had single platter drives.  Now: ?

Sub-code is 00VSA0


----------



## Ramo1203 (Jun 10, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> Does this apply to WD2500AAKS?  I thought I had single platter drives.  Now: ?
> 
> Sub-code is 00VSA0



I searched for some Benchmarks but didn't find much. I'm not sure but I don't think they make 2x125GB HDD's. 250GB is a sure buy I think you always get 1x250GB nowadays. Try running a HD Tune test and compare it to this result I found :

http://img.7pics.info/HDTune WD 2500AAKS_b96.jpg


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 10, 2009)

Ramo1203 said:


> I searched for some Benchmarks but didn't find much. I'm not sure but I don't think they make 2x125GB HDD's. 250GB is a sure buy I think you always get 1x250GB nowadays. Try running a HD Tune test and compare it to this result I found :
> 
> http://img.7pics.info/HDTune WD 2500AAKS_b96.jpg



One thing that really puzzles me about these drives is the high access time...

Anyway, these drives have only ever been used in RAID0 but it sure does look like one of these drives (my hdtune result):


----------



## Ramo1203 (Jun 10, 2009)

Humm true the access time is a little high. Did you try to set the AAM on performance profile, it's louder but access times are lower. Other than that your HD Tune score looks okay for a 2x250 RAID.


----------



## wiak (Jun 10, 2009)

access times dont say much, my samsung F1 1Tb was just as fast as my 74GB NCQ Raptor, and the samsung had 14ms access time vs raptor 8ms hehe


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 10, 2009)

I forget what drives we're talking about lol. I can run a test on my 640aaks (790fx) or the 640 with 32 MB cache (nvidia 570) if someone wants it.



wiak said:


> access times dont say much, my samsung F1 1Tb was just as fast as my 74GB NCQ Raptor, and the samsung had 14ms access time vs raptor 8ms hehe



for random it does, but sequential only you'd never know


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jun 10, 2009)

until you guys have experienced ssds none of you can talk about access times


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 10, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> until you guys have experienced ssds none of you can talk about access times



it's unlikely (for a few years) that I'll waste money on them 

Large raid array for me   (when I'm not broke haha)


----------



## Studabaker (Jun 10, 2009)

Ramo1203 said:


> Humm true the access time is a little high. Did you try to set the AAM on performance profile, it's louder but access times are lower. Other than that your HD Tune score looks okay for a 2x250 RAID.



What is AAM?

I do have the array set to the highest performance possible under Device Manager.


----------



## Soulclaimer (Jun 10, 2009)

Studabaker said:


> What is AAM?
> 
> I do have the array set to the highest performance possible under Device Manager.



Acoustic managment.


----------



## coodiggy (Jun 27, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> until you guys have experienced ssds none of you can talk about access times





HEHEH, Insert Jimmy CD... Are you expeerienced????






Slightly balked access times for the small files, but that's from a couple monitoring applications going on in the background, along with dumb windows restore monitoring and dumb drive indexing... Cause windows doesn't like to take orders from me, when I untick those features and disable their services and then restart, they seem to pop back up.. I'm not getting the same registry warnings that I used to with my registry auditing sofware. It's like there's a ghost in the machine now.  I like how WD calls you up and says HEY DUDE TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE.

They know that alot of people follow your work an some people make their purchases based on your results... Kudo's


----------



## devguy (Jun 28, 2009)

Hey fits, what was up with the CPU utilization in your pics?  Those numbers are ridiculous!


----------



## rcdraft (Jul 1, 2009)

Seagate 7200.12 1TB


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jul 1, 2009)

2 of them?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 1, 2009)

Fitseries3 said:


> i got the seagate 7200.12. it was $20 cheaper and has higher throughput.
> 
> i DONT want a raid. i've been running raids for years.



so whats the warranty, last i recall Seagate only had 3 where WD now has 5, i recall WD only having 1 and SG having 5.


----------

