I am looking for a single platter sata2/3 hdd for os and gaming, so far I have selected WD Caviar blue 500 GB(WD500AAKS) and WD Caviar Black 500GB (WD5001AALS)
Crazy_Eddy said:Had posted this in another thread , here's a link to a site with a platter capacity database : R-ML's Page: The HDD Platter Capacity Database
Both should be fine. There's the WD5000AAKX thats a single 500gig platter WD Blue SATA3 drive.
The WD Black should be quicker, but its also nearly double the cost.
If you're looking at Seagate, the 7200.12 has 500GB platter sizes.
satyanjoy said:Yeah i saw that thread later,,how is seagate in compare to WD now a days ?? and what kind of speed/performance inhancement i can expect, when moving from pata to sata2/3 in OS n gaming ? currently windows is installed on my seagate 80gb pata drive and windows score is 5.2
I see,seagate is hotter than WD , i guess ?chiragsthakur said:you will get a score of 5.9 with seagate 7200.12 (I get this score for seagate 7200.12 1Tb and same for 7200.12 500gb)
CA50 said:@OP, you will get better read/write speed with sata drives in comparison to pata ones. If you need a good one and not the best then just grab a WD blue drive of 500GB/1TB
HDtach does not work in win7, any other suggestions ?Crazy_Eddy said:Performance - Read/write speeds should be marginally better on the 7200.12. Access times will be better on the WD Blue.
Reliability - its a toss up.
Support - WD is currently a mess in that dept, although they're in the middle of a warehouse relocation, so might improve.
Newer drives are showing higher read/write speeds not because of their SATA interface, but because of higher platter densities and other design improvements.
As an example, the drives you're looking at should have a peak throughput of ~130MB/s. Thats still within the 133MB/s spec of UDMA 133, so if there was a PATA version of these drives they would be similar in performance.
As to how these drives would compare with your existing drive , run HDtach on your current drive and post a screenie.
yeah seagate indeed runs hotter then WDs.satyanjoy said:I see,seagate is hotter than WD , i guess ?
yeah,,I know that,,but i was too lazy while i got my WD blue 640aaks earlier,, now my drives are filling up, so thinking about buying a new drive. my current wd is 2 platter drive, so planning it make it entirely for data and getting a 500gb single platter to use it for OS and games (100 gb for os and remaining for games), I also have a a seagate 500gb usb
HDtach does not work in win7, any other suggestions ?
Also for a 1 TB 7200.11 drive. i think that if 5.9 is same for the newer and the older drives, then it must be a limitation of either the controller or the drive itself.chiragsthakur said:you will get a score of 5.9 with seagate 7200.12 (I get this score for seagate 7200.12 1Tb and same for 7200.12 500gb)