Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Storage

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old January 5, 2010, 09:06 AM
MVP
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunshine coast, BC
Posts: 488
Default WD 640 black results so low?

Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB Hard Drive Review

In the cystaldiskmark test the wd 640 black I have takes a bit of a dive on the write MB/s compared to the results in the review, what could be going on that I'd need to change? Thanks

---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta2 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : Crystal Dew World
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential Read : 120.692 MB/s
Sequential Write : 116.560 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 51.108 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 73.305 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.718 MB/s [ 175.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.606 MB/s [ 392.0 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.766 MB/s [ 187.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.682 MB/s [ 410.5 IOPS]
Test : 1000 MB [Q: Used 0.1% (0.1/93.3 GB)]
Date : 2010/01/05 8:00:38
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7100] (x64)

I also have a wd 1TB black on order that I don't know wether to use it for OS or use the wd 640 black for OS? I'll be making a 100GB
partition for the OS.
__________________
x4 965BE 3.7ghz / Tuniq Tower 120/ R9 280X / G Skill 12800CL9D 4x4GBXL/ S12D 850w/ GA 990FXA-UD3 /WD640AALS Black, WD1TB FALS x1, / Dell IPS 1920x1080/ Win 7 64
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old January 5, 2010, 09:57 AM
bojangles's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 2,683

My System Specs

Default

You may have bought the AAKS version of the drive, rather than the AALS version. That may be why. Sequential write speeds are great though.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old January 6, 2010, 10:35 PM
MVP
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunshine coast, BC
Posts: 488
Default

1TB seems somewhat slow compared to the 640 AALS
Brand new 1TB WD drive formatted nothing stored on it yet, maybe game drive.

HD Tune: WDC WD1001FALS-00E8B0 Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 54.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 108.6 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 89.6 MB/sec
Access Time : 12.3 ms
Burst Rate : 134.5 MB/sec
CPU Usage : -1.0%

---------------------------------------------------------
640GB drive

HD Tune: WDC WD6401AALS-00L3B2 Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 59.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 118.0 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 95.3 MB/sec
Access Time : 11.9 ms
Burst Rate : 137.1 MB/sec
CPU Usage : -1.0%

I think I should run the OS on the 640GB aals and use the 1TB for games, yes/no?

Old 250GB does OK .
HD Tune: ST3250410AS Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 52.3 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 95.0 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 82.0 MB/sec
Access Time : 15.2 ms
Burst Rate : 164.8 MB/sec
CPU Usage : -1.0%
__________________
x4 965BE 3.7ghz / Tuniq Tower 120/ R9 280X / G Skill 12800CL9D 4x4GBXL/ S12D 850w/ GA 990FXA-UD3 /WD640AALS Black, WD1TB FALS x1, / Dell IPS 1920x1080/ Win 7 64

Last edited by upcoast604; January 6, 2010 at 10:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old January 6, 2010, 11:00 PM
Oversized Rooster's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 610

My System Specs

Default

The 640GB Caviar Black is the fastest of the bunch - especially by access times. The 1TB version is a little slower. Here are some results from my machine:

WD6401AALS HD Tune


WD1001FALS HD Tune


WD6401AALS ATTO


WD1001FALS ATTO
__________________
Main: Intel 2600K @ 4.8GHz | Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3 | 16GB Corsair DDR3-2000 | 2 x 256GB Samsung 850 Pro | 2 x 4TB Hitachi 7K4000 | 3 x 2TB WD Caviar Black | Antec 1200 | Seasonic XP-860 Platinum | 4GB GTX 970 Windforce | 2 x 27" Asus VE278Q | Asus Essence ST | Win7 Pro 64-bit
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old January 10, 2010, 07:57 PM
DrPepper's Avatar
Top Prospect
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 107

My System Specs

Default

I thought the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1tb was faster cause of the 2 platters...
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old January 11, 2010, 06:32 PM
Oversized Rooster's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 610

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPepper View Post
I thought the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1tb was faster cause of the 2 platters...
Only in transfer speeds but not in access times unfortunately which is what really matters.
__________________
Main: Intel 2600K @ 4.8GHz | Gigabyte P67A-UD7-B3 | 16GB Corsair DDR3-2000 | 2 x 256GB Samsung 850 Pro | 2 x 4TB Hitachi 7K4000 | 3 x 2TB WD Caviar Black | Antec 1200 | Seasonic XP-860 Platinum | 4GB GTX 970 Windforce | 2 x 27" Asus VE278Q | Asus Essence ST | Win7 Pro 64-bit
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2xWD Caviar Black 640 GB or 1x WD Caviar Black 1T Mulder Storage 4 December 19, 2009 04:17 PM
OCZ Announces Low-Voltage AMD Black Edition Memory FiXT Press Releases & Tech News 1 September 25, 2009 11:55 AM
1tb or 640 black zsamz_ Storage 10 June 13, 2009 11:06 AM
WD 640 Black SATA ....Not SATA 2 rjbarker Storage 10 January 20, 2009 12:40 AM
AMD and IBM Detail Early Results Using Immersion and Ultra Low-K in 45NM Chips Supergrover Press Releases & Tech News 0 December 18, 2006 11:53 PM