Recommend 6400AAKS -vs- 5000AACS(GP)

psyopper · Post by **psyopper** » Sun May 11, 2008 9:14 am

I'm not looking to build the perfectly silent pc but I do want a very quiet PC. I generally prefer performance to silence but only by a slight margin. I do prefer WD drives as I have used them almost exclusively since 1997, and with one reasonably painless RMA through WD I do classify myself as a fanboy.

Usage will be Linux/Windows dual boot. My primary OS is Ubuntu but Windows will be hanging around for gaming. I can't wait for Source to make it's way to Linux so I can finally be rid of Windows.

Anyway - balancing performance with noise what is the preferred drive, the 6400AAKS or the 5000GP? Has anyone done a side by side comparison?

As a point of note, my current HDD's are EIDE WD-BB's circa 2003 and have become annoyingly whiny. My current mobo supports SATA-I. I am planning a new build in the coming months that will support SATA-II but need some extra space before then, so cross compatibility is important as this will become the primary drive in the new system.

Any input?

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Sun May 11, 2008 12:43 pm

compared to your 2003 HDs either choice would be orders of magnitude less annoying in noise signature. If you are not rich you might choose to buy on price alone. If you aren't hurting on cash I'd say get the 640GB version and take the extra speed it gives...

psyopper · Post by **psyopper** » Sun May 11, 2008 2:19 pm

dhanson865 wrote:compared to your 2003 HDs either choice would be orders of magnitude less annoying in noise signature. If you are not rich you might choose to buy on price alone. If you aren't hurting on cash I'd say get the 640GB version and take the extra speed it gives...

What about noise signature compared to each other? Not significant enough to mention considering the overall reduction from my BB's?

Some reviewers say that the GP drives are too slow for system drives (but perfectly for storage). Will I see a performance increase with the GP over my current drives?

Cryoburner · Post by **Cryoburner** » Sun May 11, 2008 2:31 pm

If I were buying a drive in that range right now, I'd probably go with the 6400AAKS. It might cost a little more, but the price per gigabyte is about the same. They're likely both good drives, but the 6400 should be a fair amount faster than the 5000GP. While the GreenPower might be a little quieter and more energy efficient, it's only by a small margin from what I've read, and both drives are among the most efficient and quietest 3.5" drives available right now.

WAG · Post by **WAG** » Sun May 11, 2008 6:53 pm

I might be able to help here. I've just built the following system that I use primarily for audio mastering and editing:

abit IP35 Pro BIOS 16; E8400 OC @ 3.6 MHz w/ Freezer 7 Pro; Antec Sonata III case w/ 500W PS & 2nd case fan; 4 GB Kingston HyperX DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 2T 2.0V; video ASUS EN7300GT 256 MB; Raptor WD1500ADFD; Caviar WD5000AAKS; Caviar WD6400AAKS; XP32 SP2C.

As you might notice I have both the 5000AAKS and the 6400AAKS in the box along with a 150 Raptor. The only drive that makes any noise audible outside the box at all is the Raptor when it is seeking. Overall the 6400 is just as fast as the Raptor, with the Raptor having only a slight edge in seek times. The 5000AAKS, which I'm using for storage and backups, is significantly slower. Also, SATA 2 is overkill; SATA 1 is fast enough for all of these drives.

Fortunately, when I built the computer, I decided to put the OS on the 6400. At most a tiny sacrifice in speed, and NO seek noise. If I were building today, I'd use nothing but the 6400.

The only problem I've had with the 6400 is actually a problem with Partition Magic 8.05. Completely incompatable, and if you aren't careful, PM will trash the MBR bad. No such problem with Acronis Disk Director.

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Mon May 12, 2008 5:04 am

psyopper wrote:
dhanson865 wrote:compared to your 2003 HDs either choice would be orders of magnitude less annoying in noise signature. If you are not rich you might choose to buy on price alone. If you aren't hurting on cash I'd say get the 640GB version and take the extra speed it gives...
What about noise signature compared to each other? Not significant enough to mention considering the overall reduction from my BB's?

Yes. Not that big a deal compared to the old WD screamers.

Some reviewers say that the GP drives are too slow for system drives (but perfectly for storage). Will I see a performance increase with the GP over my current drives?

The GP drives don't set speed records but in comparison to your old BB it will be fast.

BB = 2MB cache and most likely 40GB platters
GP = 16MB cache and 250GB platters

Higher platter capacity equals increased transfer rates. Higher cache size will offset the RPM difference at least part of the time in casual use.

If you really want speed go for the 6400AAKS but don't assume that the GP will be slower than a 5 year old 2MB cache drive.

Tenoq · Post by **Tenoq** » Thu May 29, 2008 1:21 am

Late reply - but I just picked up a 5000AACS - didn't even know they existed until the guy handed it over! (was expecting another KS). He said they'd just come into stock here.

Regardless - compared to my existing 5000AAKS it's noticeably quieter. The AACS is hard-mounted and it already makes less noise seeking and what not than the AAKS in suspension.

I can't comment on speed as yet as I'm still waiting for my WHS restore to finish (my old HTPC drive died

).