# 500GB 7200.12 vs 640GB WD Cav Black



## Kantastic (Aug 18, 2009)

So there it is, the question I've been pondering upon. *With price and brand reputation out of the equation, which drive would perform better in RAID 0?* I've never done RAID, but I would very much like to. Seagate shot themselves in the foot by screwing up the 7200.11's but from what I've read the issue has been resolved with the new .12's. The Seagate uses a single 500GB platter whereas the WD 640GB CB uses 2 320GB platters. That basically sums up all I know... the denser the platter the faster the drive? Seagate also uses some perpendicular rotation technology.. or something like that!

My dad's doing a test drive in his new car by driving me to work so I'm looking forward to the replies when I'm back!


----------



## erocker (Aug 18, 2009)

The Seagate is faster. Aside from that they are pretty much the same. They both store data and both can be put in RAID 0. I'm sure there are some other Seagate vs. WD threads you could pull information from, but really no need. Just get whatever is cheaper. The differences don't justify a tough decision.


----------



## Disparia (Aug 18, 2009)

Haven't tested two, but here's my four Blacks:







Very nice, but the Seagates would be fast as well. I use both brands at home and work, so I'd say get whatever is cheaper (so you can get more of those drives!).


----------



## erocker (Aug 18, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> Haven't tested two, but here's my four Blacks:
> 
> http://www.theburnerishot.com/photo/HDT_001.png
> 
> Very nice, but the Seagates would be fast as well. I use both brands at home and work, so I'd say get whatever is cheaper (so you can get more of those drives!).



What about does a single drive get for performance? That's very nice btw.


----------



## Homeless (Aug 18, 2009)

I hear the seagates have faster read/writes, but the access time is higher on them.  Tbh I'm not sure which one will turn out faster in the end


----------



## MoonPig (Aug 18, 2009)

Getting a single 500GB Black bench now.

Edit:


----------



## Homeless (Aug 18, 2009)

This is my 2x640wd black in raid 0


----------



## Disparia (Aug 18, 2009)

erocker said:


> What about does a single drive get for performance? That's very nice btw.



TY!

Thought I had a screenie of a single drive, as well as the RAID-5 array made of the remaining space on those drives, but I might not have saved them. Thanks to Moon and HomeLess for theirs.


----------



## boomstik360 (Aug 18, 2009)

What about the new Samsung F3 500GB With a single platter?


----------



## Kantastic (Aug 18, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> Haven't tested two, but here's my four Blacks:
> 
> http://www.theburnerishot.com/photo/HDT_001.png
> 
> Very nice, but the Seagates would be fast as well. I use both brands at home and work, so I'd say get whatever is cheaper (so you can get more of those drives!).



Is it me or is that a REALLY high read/write speed... it's 4 640GB Blacks in RAID 0 right? Really amazing... 

Access times really don't matter do they? I mean... if those are in milliseconds then I'll never really notice the difference. 
I'm probably going to get the Seagates, from reviews I've always leaned towards WD but when I found out I was using a Barracuda 7200.9 I was pretty surprised. I guess I'm not biased towards either company, although I admit I was. I guess that's what reading a ton of fanboy posts does to you huh?

Would RAID 0'ing 2 of the 7200.12's with a .9 cause any issues?


----------



## DanishDevil (Aug 19, 2009)

Access times are what make SSD's WAY better than HDD's. Just think about it. When you run a game, how many files are you accessing? Thousands. If the random access time for each file averages 5ms slower than another drive, you're waiting a lot longer than you would have otherwise.

Raiding mismatched drives won't cause any issues, no. It's just recommended that you RAID matches.


----------



## erocker (Aug 19, 2009)

Seagate 7200.12 1TB


----------

