Western Digital WD6401AALS

Personally I'd go with a cheaper 1tb drive if it's for storage (eg. Seagate/Samsung/WD GP).

As for the price on the smaller drives, the same reason anything has an exhorbitent price. Because they can.
 
so is it a yes or no ? is the AALS faster then the AAKS?

AAKS vs. AALS

i read the whole thing but i can't tell
 
mista ting said:
so is it a yes or no ? is the AALS faster then the AAKS?

AAKS vs. AALS

i read the whole thing but i can't tell
Click to expand...

on the first page REaL56 ran hdtune on both the aaks and aals. the aals actually benched a tad slower, but i would take that with grain of salt. i really doubt you would ever tell the difference between the two when they are installed and doing everday tasks in your machine. hopefully storage review or the likes will do a full blown test on these drives, so it would be easy to see the differences in performance between the two. i may go with the aals drives just for the warranty. its easier to sell drives that have warranty left on them when you decide to upgrade. :D
 
I ran the test using HDtune for the AALS, but the test from the AAKS was not from me. In order test these accurately a test using both drive on the same machine will need to be done, I can't do this because I don't own an AAKS drive.

I don't think the AALS is slower than the AAKS but I also don't think its any faster. If the extra warranty and lower cpu usage is important then spend the extra $5-10 dollar for the AALS otherwise save that money and get the AAKS.
 
REaL56 said:
I ran the test using HDtune for the AALS, but the test from the AAKS was not from me. In order test these accurately a test using both drive on the same machine will need to be done, I can't do this because I don't own an AAKS drive.

I don't think the AALS is slower than the AAKS but I also don't think its any faster. If the extra warranty and lower cpu usage is important then spend the extra $5-10 dollar for the AALS otherwise save that money and get the AAKS.
Click to expand...

ahh, sorry i didnt see that the aaks wasnt your bench :). it would be interesting to see side by side benches of the two different drives on the same machine.
 
Looking at those tests posted on the first page of this thread and seeing the burst speeds of < 150MB makes me think the person doing the testing doesn't have these drives running in SATA II mode. There is no way in Hell these drives can't pump out 230MB or higher in burst speeds so, perhaps if he/she/it redid the benches using proper SATA II mode the numbers just might climb higher.

I see this shit all the time around here when people do benchmarks and it's the very first thing I look for - the burst speed. If I see < 150MB then I know they're not set up correctly and stuck in the slower SATA I mode. I don't know why people seem to miss this point of the testing, but they always do...
 
Joe Average said:
Looking at those tests posted on the first page of this thread and seeing the burst speeds of < 150MB makes me think the person doing the testing doesn't have these drives running in SATA II mode. There is no way in Hell these drives can't pump out 230MB or higher in burst speeds so, perhaps if he/she/it redid the benches using proper SATA II mode the numbers just might climb higher.

I see this shit all the time around here when people do benchmarks and it's the very first thing I look for - the burst speed. If I see < 150MB then I know they're not set up correctly and stuck in the slower SATA I mode. I don't know why people seem to miss this point of the testing, but they always do...
Click to expand...

Correct! When I got my 7200.11 it shipped in SATA I mode and had a burst speed of 115 MB/sec. When I pulled the jumper to put it in SATA II mode, the burst speed went to 189 MB/sec. SATA II mode did not change the read rate, nor the access time. It only helped the burst speed. Prolly not noticable in real world use.

Don
 
I checked the jumper setting and there is no jumper in any of the pins. If it is not in SATA2 mode how would I make it run at SATA2?
 
Depending on the task at hand, having that vastly superior burst rate can make a shitload of difference, especially with today's high perf drives having 16 and 32MB of cache which is where that burst data is going to come from.

As for how to get it working properly if there's no jumper, I haven't a clue. I know in the past some configurations of some drives matched to some mobos and some controllers didn't work out well so that's why companies like Seagate started shipping drives with jumpers set to SATA I mode to ensure complete functionality and compatibility. I almost bought a 320GB AAKS from Fry's today (they have them in retail boxes for $64) but decided against it - can get the 640GB AAKS from Newegg for $75 with free shipping - after taxes the 320GB would have been about $72 anyway.

Wanted to do some testing on my own to see the burst speeds because I know for sure that any SATA II capable drive can burst well over 150MB nowadays. If they can't, then either:

a) it's configured for SATA I operation and you'll have to figure out how to bump it for SATA II mode, or...

b) it's a piece of shit. :D
 
I just replaced my aging 74Gb Raptor with an WD 6401AALS (Caviar Black)

Here are benchmarks of both:
74vs640.gif
 
Joe Average said:
Looking at those tests posted on the first page of this thread and seeing the burst speeds of < 150MB makes me think the person doing the testing doesn't have these drives running in SATA II mode. There is no way in Hell these drives can't pump out 230MB or higher in burst speeds so, perhaps if he/she/it redid the benches using proper SATA II mode the numbers just might climb higher.

I see this shit all the time around here when people do benchmarks and it's the very first thing I look for - the burst speed. If I see < 150MB then I know they're not set up correctly and stuck in the slower SATA I mode. I don't know why people seem to miss this point of the testing, but they always do...
Click to expand...


Well, I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. My Seagate 7200.10 500GB drive says to use NO jumper for SATA II. That's how it is configured. I get 137.4 burst speed in Vista x64 with advanced performance enabled in device manager.

Same thing for the WD6400AAKS. 147 burst with no jumper and advanced performance enabled.

Motherboard is Gigabyte P-965-DS3 with latest Intel motherboard drivers.
 
Greggy_D said:
Well, I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. My Seagate 7200.10 500GB drive says to use NO jumper for SATA II. That's how it is configured. I get 137.4 burst speed in Vista x64 with advanced performance enabled in device manager.

Same thing for the WD6400AAKS. 147 burst with no jumper and advanced performance enabled.

Motherboard is Gigabyte P-965-DS3 with latest Intel motherboard drivers.
Click to expand...

OK...the plot thickens. I dual boot to XP (32 bit) and re-ran the test with HDTune AND HDTach in XP (32 bit).

Seagate 500GB
1. HDTune 146 Burst
2. HDTach 218.9 Burst (WTF)

WD64000AAKS
1. HDTune 147 Burst (same as Vista x64)
2. HDTach 233.5 Burst (double WTF)

You tell me.
 
Burst mode is always a little dicey to measure. It can be affected by the controller, the chipset and drivers, and the size of the files being transferred during the test. Some of the more exotic RAID 0 setups I have read about can cause really weird readings to be reported for burst speed.

Don
 
shagvirus said:
thank you for this.
Click to expand...

I cloned the 74Gb Raptor to a matching sized partition on the WD 640Gb.... so it's short stroked for the OS, programs and virtual memory. Then left the remainder of the drive on another partition for storage.

The 640Gb is quieter than the 74Gb.... and the 74Gb Raptor is in a harddrive enclosure!

The 74Gb Raptor is an old version.... WD740GB-00FLA1.

drives.gif
 
I'm rocking that exact raptor 74gig. Would you say it should be a no-brainer to upgrade to a 640 AAKS or AALS for my new i7 build?
 
Hordsak said:
I'm rocking that exact raptor 74gig. Would you say it should be a no-brainer to upgrade to a 640 AAKS or AALS for my new i7 build?
Click to expand...

keep the raptor for the OS, use the 640GB for storage. I'd go for the AALS drive if warranty matters to you. its also built for enterprise use, so you'll get more use out of it.
 
Benchmark was used on the system in the signature. (P.S. - F*** VRaptors)

WD Caviar Black 640GB -
2 x WD6401AALS (74.99 x 2 = $150) setup on ICH10R matrix raid.

Raid 0 Volume - 161gb - 128k stripe. (Second Volume is Raid 0 1119GB)

Slight Dip in minimum due to activity spike
6401aalsx2nf4.jpg
 
you guys constantly forget one thing.

the 6400 drives may be faster in data transfer, but are you really transferring data all day long?

no, your computer randomly access files as you use the machine. thats where ACCESS TIME comes in.

8ms compared to 12ms is a big difference. theres a reason the raptor drives are a buck a gig.
 
Pretty sure I am getting 8ms with my 2x6401AALS matrix setup. I also got another 1gb of space for half the price :)


ans136 said:
Benchmark was used on the system in the signature. (P.S. - F*** VRaptors)

WD Caviar Black 640GB -
2 x WD6401AALS (74.99 x 2 = $150) setup on ICH10R matrix raid.

Raid 0 Volume - 161gb - 128k stripe. (Second Volume is Raid 0 1119GB)

Slight Dip in minimum due to activity spike
6401aalsx2nf4.jpg
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top