Western Digital WD6401AALS

I'm myself considering getting four of these for RAID10 so even plain pics of drives bottom side would be interesting.
WD6400AAKS is other drive after 1TB Caviar Black which uses ~333GB platters so would be good to know has only change been in "electronics" side... Then again using three 250GB platters like in 750GB models would waste lot capacity by short stroking so it wouldn't be economically sensible to WD.
(making platter costs same regardless how much of capacity is used but using smaller part means smaller selling price)

At least 1TB Caviar Black is one of the fastest 7200rpm drives (beating even old 3.5" Raptors in some tests) and WD6400AAKS isn't notably slower in anything so performance wise WD6401AALS should be fast regardless of what firmware they use combined to 32MB cache.
 
Crap, Ijust bought ANOTHER WD6400AAKS for a build I'm doing...shoulda waited I guess...
 
Eh, I doubt the WD "Black" 640GB is going to be that much faster, the difference probably lies in the warranty anyways.
 
My first post and review of the Western Digital 640GB Black.

Test using:
MSI P43 w/ Q9550
Windows Vista 64bit SP1



First Run

Second Run


The drive is really quiet I don't hear it over my 120mm case fans. I think a background program caused it to dip pretty low. I was going to get the Blue version but this drive was about $10 more for the dual processor, 32mb of cache and 5 year warranty. Good buy in my opinion.

If anybody would like me to test it using a different setting or software let me know. I searched everywhere for a review on this drive but couldn't find one, guess I'll be the first. Anyone have comparison chart of the Blue version?
 
Here's my WD6400AAKS for comparison's sake....

wd6400aakshdtune01qi3.png
 
That really looks good. Hopefully someone will do a review of all of the 640GB models soon.

REaL56…..Were did you purchase your drive?
 
A few sites are selling them now, I got mine at buy dot com. From the looks of Brahmzy chart it seems that the black is not any faster than the WD6400AAKS.

Ran test again and the numbers seemed solid, no more dips.
65549582mq2.jpg
 
Brahmzy said:
Here's my WD6400AAKS for comparison's sake....

wd6400aakshdtune01qi3.png
Click to expand...

Was your CPU at 4.4GHZ during this test?


IMO it would be hard to get a fair comparison unless the benchmarks were made on the same machines.


I'd get the black series. That 32mb of cache should help.
 
I am tempted to replace my 4 year old WD1500ADFD Raptor with this one for a boot drive and relegate the Raptor for Par2, RAR and scratch pad work.
 
the only difference between this and the 6400AAKS is (from what i can tell):

1. "dual processor" technology (i have no idea what this is)...
2. Warranty is 5 years versus 3 years on the AAKS
3. platter sizes are probably a little bit bigger.
 
How can it have larger platters? The biggest the platters can be is half the total of the drive, which is 320GB, which is what the AAKS model has.
 
How are these worth the price increase? From what I am seeing, these new drives do not perform as well as the WD6400AAKS, no?
 
if there is a 1 terrabyte drive of this model (which there is), its 3 x 333GB platters, instead of 4 x 250GB platters.

The platters are bigger.
 
Does the Black version report more space available installed REaL56? The difference between 640 and 667 ;) isn't much and they might want to avoid confusion.
 
Corvette said:
Does the Black version report more space available installed REaL56? The difference between 640 and 667 ;) isn't much and they might want to avoid confusion.
Click to expand...

It does not report more space available. The platters are the same size as the WD6400AAKS.

If people are still thinking about getting either the Black or WD6400AAKS. The Black version has an extra 2 year warranty which is worth the extra cost ($5-10 more than WD6400AAKS) and you are getting 32mb of cache instead of 16mb :) Performance seemed to be almost exactly the same between the two but the Black does use less CPU due to its dual processor.

Had mine running for about a week now and its running strong and cool.
 
GJSNeptune said:
No.
Click to expand...

i was only asking cause I'm planning on doing a RAID 0 of 640GB drives for everything i'm going to install with my system. I figured the 32mb cache in RAID 0 can have a decent effect on the overall drive performance.

I'd haave a triple Rapoter 36GB 16MB Cache RAID 0 array running the OS and drivers and main programs, and then all my games and documents on the RAID 0 1.2 TB array.

then I'd back all of it up to images on a single 1 TB drive.
 
Is the 640gb version better than the 1tb version of the Caviar Black HDs in terms of heat, noise, features and/or speed? The price per gig on the 640 is way better, I'm thinking about getting 3 of em for about the same capacity as 2 1TBs but 45$ cheaper.
 
The 1TB version is three 333GB~ platters, while the 640GB is two 320GB platters. So, the 640GB will produce less heat. There may be a difference in speed, but it's tough to say when the 1TB version has the edge on platter density, even if it's only by a small amount.

I don't see how the capacity is about the same though. 1280GB for the two 640GB drives and 2000GB for the two 1TB drives. The $/gig difference is very small as well. 640GBs are $85. 1TBs are $150. $85/640 = $0.13. $150/1000 = $0.15. 720GB is a pretty decent amount of space, and $0.02/gig isn't a lot.
 
The capacity is almost the same for *3* 640gb drives.
640x3 = 1920GB -vs- 2000GB
85x3 = $255 -vs- 150x2 = $300

So $45 or 56 cents per gig for that extra 80. 2 Cents per gig adds up pretty fast.
 
Ah I missed where you said three. My bad.

I'd be unsure of what the gain would be on an onboard nVidia or Intel controller if you were going to RAID 0 them all. If you're just connecting them all then go for it. $45 is $45.
 
sephy2006 said:
Is the 640gb version better than the 1tb version of the Caviar Black HDs in terms of heat, noise, features and/or speed? The price per gig on the 640 is way better, I'm thinking about getting 3 of em for about the same capacity as 2 1TBs but 45$ cheaper.
Click to expand...

Not sure how hot the 1tb version is but my black 640gb is at 32C-34C max depending on room temp. It runs cooler than my other two hard drives which is at 38C-40C.
 
I'm looking to get 4 of these. Should I get them vs the AAKS or the $5-$10 more is not worth it?
 
LOCO LAPTOP said:
I'm looking to get 4 of these. Should I get them vs the AAKS or the $5-$10 more is not worth it?
Click to expand...

If $5 per drive for 2 years of warranty is worth it to you then go for it, otherwise save the money because that seems to be the most noticable difference.
 
novadude said:
If $5 per drive for 2 years of warranty is worth it to you then go for it, otherwise save the money because that seems to be the most noticable difference.
Click to expand...

Ya know, 3 years is a long time in computer years, let alone 5. If a HD is going to have a problem, it is usually in the first few months. In 3 years, these drives are going to be small and doggin it pretty bad.

The first 36 Gig Raptors are just going off of their 5 year warranty.

Just something to think about.

Don
 
Yeah, in three years we'll hopefully be on SSD for everything but the mass storage (those multi-TB drives will still win the $/TB war for a while over SSD's), but by then you may get a bigger drive shipped out as a replacement. Some people hang on to their HD's for a loooong time though, so it might be worth it to some.
 
I'm really interested in getting a caviar black to replace the 500gb I sold.

I'm not sure wether or not I should get the 1TB or the 640gb. My ideal plan is to keep the large drive for a while as a big storage medium for all my music, games, and movies and keep my 2nd HDD, which will be a raptor, small and use it for my OS/App's. I only use about 300GB now for storage of my music, pictures and other things I choose to save. I plan on doing more with movies and now that we're in an HD era I could see the extra GB being worth it because if I'm not mistaken HD movies are about what 20+ gb a movie.

I plan on converting my raptor setup to SSD's and soon as SLC becomes affordable or someone comes out with a nice, fast, cheap and reliable MLC.

Is there a reason why the 300/150gb Velociraptors are at or under $1/gb but the 74gb ones are like $2/gb. I was really hoping I'd be able to get 2x 75gb VR for about $150 give or take but they're alot more expensive than I had hoped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top