WD 320GB or 640GB SE16 Drive

falcon26 · Post by **falcon26** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:14 am

Need a new drive which one would be better overall for speed and for low noise, the 320GB SE16 or the 640GB SE16?

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:36 am

Short answer is:

640GB because it's too easy to pay for a 320GB 2 platter drive when what you want is a 320GB 1 platter drive. On top of that the 320GB doesn't come in the Black or Green versions, 320GB is limited to Blue.

640GB Black for speed and longer warranty

640GB Green for lower power draw and lower noise

here is a comparison from WD specs for the three 640GB models

Code: Select all

640GB            Black   Blue   Green
Cache in MB      32      16     16
AVG Latency ms   4.2     4.2    ?.? (this is a function of RPM)
RPM              7200    7200   IntelliPower (treat that as 5400)
Drive Ready Time 11 sec  13     14.3
Load/Unload      300,000 ??     300,000 (blue listed Start/Stop of 50,000)
Warranty         5       3      3
R/W Power watts  8.3     8.3    5.4
Idle Power watts 7.7     7.7    2.5
Standby watts    1       1      0.46
Sleep            1       1      0.46
Max shock        300     300    300
Idle dBA         25      25     24
Performance seek 29      29     29
Quiet seek       26      26     25

Black = WD6401AALS
Blue = WD6400AAKS
Green = WD6400AACS

I don't mind hearing my HD as long as it's just air noise or seek noise but I can't stand a whine. AFAIK the Black is noisier but doesn't whine. If you can't stand hearing your drive under any circumstances get the Green.

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:51 am

I am not sure how you know the Black is faster than the Blue. It is pretty well documented that the WD6400AAKS is not any slower than the 1TB Black WD1001FALS. It might be that the WD6401AALS is slower than the WD6400AAKS despite having twice the cache.

falcon26 · Post by **falcon26** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:38 pm

Figures I just picked up the Blue 320GB WD at Fry's for $70 Well at least at frys I can return without a restocking fee. I'll give it a try anyway....

EDIT: I just checked the model number I got the 00B3A0 stepping, that is the good one correct?

line · Post by **line** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:47 pm

Yeah that's the single-platter one.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:59 pm

falcon26 wrote:Figures I just picked up the Blue 320GB WD at Fry's for $70 Well at least at frys I can return without a restocking fee. I'll give it a try anyway....

EDIT: I just checked the model number I got the 00B3A0 stepping, that is the good one correct?

The Black 640GB is only $15 more from newegg if you do change your mind and want the extra space.

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:46 pm

QuietOC wrote:I am not sure how you know the Black is faster than the Blue. It is pretty well documented that the WD6400AAKS is not any slower than the 1TB Black WD1001FALS. It might be that the WD6401AALS is slower than the WD6400AAKS despite having twice the cache.

How many threads am I going to have to explain this in? OK here we go again:

640GB = two platters
1TB = three platters

That extra platter = more noise, more power usage, more heat, slower drive ready time, more susceptible to shock damage, and more vibration.

There is no mystery to that. No need to wonder if. Just to be clear let me past the specs again that I posted on another thread.

Code: Select all

Black 640GB vs 1TB comparison

Drive Ready Time 11 sec  13
R/W Power watts  8.3     8.4
Idle Power watts 7.7     7.8
Standby watts    1       1
Max shock        300     250
Performance seek 29      33
Quiet seek       26      29

In case you still haven't figured it out

Drive ready times:
1TB Black 13
640 Blue 13
640 Black 11

as in yeah the 1TB black and 640 blue are similar in speed but the 640 Black is faster than either of them.

You aren't the first person to pull out that techreport test but so far no one has shown me an apples to apples WD6401AALS versus WD6400AAKS on the same setup test. Until I see that I'll just have to go by the WD specs.

Maybe one of these days I'll pull the WD6400AAKS out of my dad's PC and test it vs a WD6401AALS on my own hardware but until then...

kiwik · Post by **kiwik** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:58 pm

If it's of any indications to the thread, here's a HD Tach of my WD6400AAKS with AAM set at 254.

Ksanderash · Post by **Ksanderash** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:53 am

Nice. Usual 7200rpm 320Gb per platter results. Just as my 320Gb Blue does.
And here we got 5400rpm greenery

WD6400AACS (640Gb, 5400, 2 platters):

WD10EACS (1Tb, 5400, 3 platters):

http://uneit.com/2008/08/29/test-of-per ... 10eacs-gp/

falcon26 · Post by **falcon26** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:57 pm

Got the drive installed. And I have to say its slightly quieter than the samsung f1 320gb hd I had. The WD has less vibration noise than the samsung does that's for sure. And its just as fast...

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:36 pm

Head to head comparisons of the WD6401AALS versus the WD6400AAKS at http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=5888537

Access times, Burst rate, min transfer, max transfer were all better on the WD6401AALS.

Here is a short quote I found interesting.

-JJ- wrote:Boot time with AAKS after fresh OS install (using image created with acronis true image) was around 12,5 sec., with AALS boot time after fresh OS install (using the same image as previously) was @10,3sec. Boot time was measured with Bootvis - Trace - Next boot + drivers delays. I clearly noticed that with AALS the hdd starts spinning much earlier in the boot process than AAKS.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15363/5 shows a boot including BIOS POST time at 38 secs with a WD6400AAKS so 2 or 3 seconds off the boot time isn't insane but I'll take every little bit of performance I can get when it boots faster than an SSD and costs way less.

ekerazha · Post by **ekerazha** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 4:37 am

dhanson865 wrote:Head to head comparisons of the WD6401AALS versus the WD6400AAKS at http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=5888537

That is a RAID 0 setup, but it's better than nothing.
However, it's expectable for the Caviar Black to be a bit faster than the Caviar Blue, but what about noise?

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:16 am

ekerazha wrote:
dhanson865 wrote:Head to head comparisons of the WD6401AALS versus the WD6400AAKS at http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=5888537
but what about noise?

I had a WD6401AALS sitting on my desk powered up and formatting, testing for bad sectors last week. If I put my ear near the drive I could barely hear the drive going from sector to sector rapidly but there was no noise I'd consider undesirable.

I was pleased that the drive stayed cool at idle with no airflow nearby hard mounted in a drive cage that was removed from the server the drives were going in (It got nice and toasty if left without airflow during long periods of disk activity). I put a fan (a big box fan unrelated to computer use) pointed at it after I was done listening for noise. I turned it off for a few seconds during the later testing to listen to active noise.

After that I put the drives in a server that is by no means quiet and I haven't bought one for home use yet but I have bought several for work and I see no reason why anyone should avoid the Black edition for noise concerns.

If you are that sensitive about drive noise that it is more important than performance you want the Green edition. If you aren't bothered by the noise of the Blue edition the Black sounds just as nice.

Again the caveat is that I'm only speaking of the 2 platter 640GB models. If you get a 3 platter monster you are on your own.

angelkiller · Post by **angelkiller** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:39 am

dhanson865 wrote:Again the caveat is that I'm only speaking of the 2 platter 640GB models. If you get a 3 platter monster you are on your own.

Wait. Are you saying that there is a 3 platter version of the WD6400AAKS?

Would you recommend the Black WD6400AAKS to someone who is on a tight budget. (ie is the $15 really worth it)

And what makes the Black edition so special? Obviously it performs better, warrenty, etc, but physically shouldn't it be the same as the Blue edition? I don't see WD making another drive for minor performance gains. Does the Black have different (more aggressive) firmware?

ekerazha · Post by **ekerazha** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:53 am

angelkiller wrote:
dhanson865 wrote:Again the caveat is that I'm only speaking of the 2 platter 640GB models. If you get a 3 platter monster you are on your own.
Wait. Are you saying that there is a 3 platter version of the WD6400AAKS?

No, he's saying there is a 3 platter version of the Caviar Black (Caviar Black 1 TB). WD6400AAKS is Caviar BLUE.

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:24 am

angelkiller wrote:
dhanson865 wrote:Again the caveat is that I'm only speaking of the 2 platter 640GB models. If you get a 3 platter monster you are on your own.
Wait. Are you saying that there is a 3 platter version of the WD6400AAKS?

No but the 500GB, 750GB, and 1TB models may have different platters. I saying Black, Blue, or Green you should only look at 640GB models right now. If you consider any drive other than one of the 640GB models you have to be very VERY careful to check specs or you may order a drive that has something other than the 320GB platters of the current generation drives.

Would you recommend the Black WD6400AAKS to someone who is on a tight budget. (ie is the $15 really worth it)

If you are on a tight budget yes. You are getting increased performance and 2 more years of warranty for the price. If money were not an issue you would go SSD and say screw rotating media.

If you want to offset the cost difference to get the speed the specs imply that the WD5001AALS is the same drive as the WD6401AALS with the extra 140GB chopped off by the firmware. It saves you $5 but to me I'd just get the WD6401AALS and call it good.

And what makes the Black edition so special? Obviously it performs better, warranty, etc, but physically shouldn't it be the same as the Blue edition? I don't see WD making another drive for minor performance gains. Does the Black have different (more aggressive) firmware?

yes they made another drive. It really is physically different.

The black vs blue changes:

5 year vs 3 year warranty

twice the cache (32mb vs 16mb)

firmware is set more aggressively based on hardware differences

AAM default is likely different (I haven't checked)

0.69kg vs 0.63kg (might help damp vibration some)

rated for use at lower operating temps 32F vs 41F (0c vs 5c)

Things that are the same between black and blue

same platters

same compatibility/connectors

RPM

Power

Max shock (ability to not be damaged when dropped or jarred in any way)

dBA

The Drive Ready Time is reduced by ~2 seconds and why boot times are faster on the Black.

I don't know if there are other component changes involved. Did they use a different motor to spin the platters and increase the warranty? Is it better quality parts or just a promise to replace the drive?

In the end we do know there are physical differences. I'm just not willing to bust open a pair of ~$80 drives to see what they might be.

catkin · Post by **catkin** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:17 pm

dhanson865 wrote:That extra platter = more noise, more power usage, more heat, slower drive ready time, more susceptible to shock damage, and more vibration.

Makes sense. What I'm struggling to understand is why more platters (= more heads) doesn't translate into faster sustained read and write times. Don't know about the WD 1TB but the performance figures for the WD3200AAKS-00B3A0 and WD6400AAKS are almost identical.

angelkiller · Post by **angelkiller** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:00 am

catkin wrote:
dhanson865 wrote:That extra platter = more noise, more power usage, more heat, slower drive ready time, more susceptible to shock damage, and more vibration.
Makes sense. What I'm struggling to understand is why more platters (= more heads) doesn't translate into faster sustained read and write times. Don't know about the WD 1TB but the performance figures for the WD3200AAKS-00B3A0 and WD6400AAKS are almost identical.

It's because, all other thing equal, adding another platter only increases the capacity of the drive. The data is only in one physical place on the drive. Adding another platter won't help the drive get to that one place any faster.

I think you're thinking somewhat along the lines of a RAID array. When the data is physically in more than one place, adding drives to the array help with performance.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:33 am

catkin wrote:
dhanson865 wrote:That extra platter = more noise, more power usage, more heat, slower drive ready time, more susceptible to shock damage, and more vibration.
Makes sense. What I'm struggling to understand is why more platters (= more heads) doesn't translate into faster sustained read and write times. Don't know about the WD 1TB but the performance figures for the WD3200AAKS-00B3A0 and WD6400AAKS are almost identical.

Because all the heads move in concert with each other, so only one head is in the correct location at any given moment in time. In other words, a 4 platter drive may have 8 read/write heads, but only 1 of them is in the right place at the right time. You'd need 4 separate servos in order to do 4 operations at a time. In theory you could do multiple independant heads by having them on opposite corners of the hard drive mounting case itself, but then you've increased the cost dramatically too. I'm only slightly surprised to see nobody's done it before, but I guess that means its not practical, even if it should be physically possible.

catkin · Post by **catkin** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:34 pm

AZBrandon wrote: Because all the heads move in concert with each other, so only one head is in the correct location at any given moment in time. In other words, a 4 platter drive may have 8 read/write heads, but only 1 of them is in the right place at the right time. You'd need 4 separate servos in order to do 4 operations at a time. In theory you could do multiple independant heads by having them on opposite corners of the hard drive mounting case itself, but then you've increased the cost dramatically too. I'm only slightly surprised to see nobody's done it before, but I guess that means its not practical, even if it should be physically possible.

Thanks AZ

Clear. As you say independent heads must be impractical if they are not implemented.

I wasn't thinking of independent heads so much as the set of heads, moving in concert, each on their own track, writing a "cylinder" of consecutively numbered blocks in a single revolution. All the blocks would have to be available, of course.

Once the blocks were written as a cylinder they could be read the same way (at least into buffer because *n*x systems don't know about disk geometry so wouldn't know to ask for a cylinder's worth of data).

Like independent heads it must be an impractical idea because otherwise it's so obvious it would have been implemented.

IIRC files could be laid out in cylinders on IBM mainframes in the 80s and probably still today.

falcon26 · Post by **falcon26** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:36 pm

How quiet or loud is the new WD 640AALS? I've read reviews on newegg and pretty much all of them say the drives are hands down the fastest 7200 rpm drives out, but they are loud. Has anyone here at silenpc had one to review? I'd like to get one if they are quiet and as fast as everyone is saying they are...

dhanson865 · Post by **dhanson865** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:38 pm

falcon26 wrote:How quiet or loud is the new WD 640AALS? I've read reviews on newegg and pretty much all of them say the drives are hands down the fastest 7200 rpm drives out, but they are loud. Has anyone here at silenpc had one to review? I'd like to get one if they are quiet and as fast as everyone is saying they are...

As I said above about the WD6401AALS, I didn't notice any undue noise when I powered up one on my desk at work. I've yet to put one in my home systems but I have 6 at work. I see no reason to avoid them.

FWIW we ordered some from newegg and some from provantage. The ones from the egg were made about 2 weeks before the order was placed. The ones from provantage were made about 2 months before the order was placed. I noticed no difference in the appearance of the drives other than:

Manufacturing date
Serial number
and some numbers that are stamped into the top plate of the drive. It was in the form of L3 or P6 or some sort of letter number combination that was only two digits (one letter, one number). I'm not really sure what those are about.

davidh44 · Post by **davidh44** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:02 am

I have two WD6400AAKS made in March and June, and just received two WD6401AALS with matching mfg. dates of less than 2 weeks ago. They all have the same firmware version.

Putting my ear to each drive and listening to idle and seek noises (with AAM disabled), my AAKS are quieter. One of the AALS is close to being as quiet, but the other AALS is quite a bit louder.

Enabling AAM does a wonderful job of muting seek noise, but at a cost of 3ms higher random access time.

falcon26 · Post by **falcon26** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:27 pm

Ok I got the 640aals. And after running HD Tune and HD tach it is pretty much even with my 320GB single platter WD drive. And they were both quiet. With AAM off I get 16 ms access time with the 320GB with the 640GB its 14 ms access time, big deal. With AAM on my 320GB is about the same but the 640GB goes to 17 ms access time. Oh and the transfer rates were actually slighty better on the 320GB. So I'm not sure if I got a bad HD or what, but the 640GB is going back to newegg. I'll keep the 320GB, its dead quiet and just as fast as the 640GB one...

intx · Post by **intx** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:15 am

davidh44 wrote:I have two WD6400AAKS made in March and June, and just received two WD6401AALS with matching mfg. dates of less than 2 weeks ago. They all have the same firmware version.

Putting my ear to each drive and listening to idle and seek noises (with AAM disabled), my AAKS are quieter. One of the AALS is close to being as quiet, but the other AALS is quite a bit louder.

Enabling AAM does a wonderful job of muting seek noise, but at a cost of 3ms higher random access time.

Was there any physical differences (e.g. motor different colour) between the two 640gb blacks?