Western Digital WD1600AAJS: 160GB Served on Single Platter
by Gary Key on February 5, 2007 11:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Hard Disk Performance: HDTach
We find HDTach to be useful for generating random access and average read rate results in a very consistent manner. Although the burst rates and CPU utilization numbers are interesting they tend to be meaningless in actual application performance comparisons.
The Western Digital Caviar SE 160GB has the highest average sequential read speed of 68.7MB/s with the Western Digital drive averaging 64.1MB/s in our direct comparison today. Our Maxtor DiamondMax 17 160GB drive trails at a still respectable 56.5MB/s. In previous testing our WD Raptor 150 led the field with a 75.4MB/s average, the Seagate 7200.10 750GB at 66.9MB/s, WD RE2 500GB drive at 62.4MB/s, WD RE2 400GB drive at 57.0MB/s, and the WD RE16 250GB drive at 51.4MB/s.
The random access time benchmark still favors the 10,000RPM spindle speed of the Raptor which generates a result of 8.6ms. The average rotational latency at 10,000 RPM is 3ms while the average rotational latency at 7200 RPM is 4.17ms; what this means is that the head seek speed on the Raptor is also significantly faster (~5.6ms) than the other drives (9.2-10.0ms). However, the Maxtor trails significantly in random access time posting a score of 19.2ms compared to 13.6ms on the WD drive. There appears to be a problem with the Maxtor unit in this particular test, as both drives advertise the same seek latency; we are still looking into the situation but expect this to have an impact on some of the results.
In our sequential read speed results the WD 160GB drive finishes around the 40MB/s mark at the end of the disk and the Maxtor at 31MB/s. In contrast, the WD Raptor finishes with a 52MB/s result that is more than 30% greater than the 7200 RPM drives. Although the WD 160GB drive has very good burst and random access rates we will soon see this does not always translate into class leading performance.
Hard Disk Performance: HD Tune
The HD Tune performance results between each drive mirror the HDTach results. The two programs each report slightly different results but the net result is that the WD drive provides better random access and sustained transfer rates than the Maxtor drive.
Click to enlarge |
We find HDTach to be useful for generating random access and average read rate results in a very consistent manner. Although the burst rates and CPU utilization numbers are interesting they tend to be meaningless in actual application performance comparisons.
The Western Digital Caviar SE 160GB has the highest average sequential read speed of 68.7MB/s with the Western Digital drive averaging 64.1MB/s in our direct comparison today. Our Maxtor DiamondMax 17 160GB drive trails at a still respectable 56.5MB/s. In previous testing our WD Raptor 150 led the field with a 75.4MB/s average, the Seagate 7200.10 750GB at 66.9MB/s, WD RE2 500GB drive at 62.4MB/s, WD RE2 400GB drive at 57.0MB/s, and the WD RE16 250GB drive at 51.4MB/s.
The random access time benchmark still favors the 10,000RPM spindle speed of the Raptor which generates a result of 8.6ms. The average rotational latency at 10,000 RPM is 3ms while the average rotational latency at 7200 RPM is 4.17ms; what this means is that the head seek speed on the Raptor is also significantly faster (~5.6ms) than the other drives (9.2-10.0ms). However, the Maxtor trails significantly in random access time posting a score of 19.2ms compared to 13.6ms on the WD drive. There appears to be a problem with the Maxtor unit in this particular test, as both drives advertise the same seek latency; we are still looking into the situation but expect this to have an impact on some of the results.
In our sequential read speed results the WD 160GB drive finishes around the 40MB/s mark at the end of the disk and the Maxtor at 31MB/s. In contrast, the WD Raptor finishes with a 52MB/s result that is more than 30% greater than the 7200 RPM drives. Although the WD 160GB drive has very good burst and random access rates we will soon see this does not always translate into class leading performance.
Hard Disk Performance: HD Tune
The HD Tune performance results between each drive mirror the HDTach results. The two programs each report slightly different results but the net result is that the WD drive provides better random access and sustained transfer rates than the Maxtor drive.
18 Comments
View All Comments
orenlevy - Friday, November 9, 2007 - link
hi everybody i would like to say that i am a computer builder .latly i recived this hard drive 160G aajs with access time of minimum 20m\s
i am speaking for a wile with wd support. ill write soon for now i had 4 harddrive like that.
fendell - Friday, May 4, 2007 - link
Any chance you could update this with the WD5000AAKS ?It is a great bargain atm :)
DrMrLordX - Tuesday, February 6, 2007 - link
Any chance you could include the Hitachi T7k500 in reviews like this one?Gary Key - Tuesday, February 6, 2007 - link
Yes, we will have the new/old WD and Hitachi 500GB drive results up in two weeks.DrMrLordX - Wednesday, February 7, 2007 - link
cool, thanksRike - Monday, February 5, 2007 - link
You might want to put up pics that are consistent. When I saw the first pic on page one, the fist thing I noticed was that the four pin was still there, which surprised me. Pics on pages 1 & 12 show a four pin power connection on the drive while the page 2 pics clearly show a big hole where the four pin would be. Of course the text on page two says . . .You might want to clear this one up.
Gary Key - Tuesday, February 6, 2007 - link
The press photos that WD sent us had the old casing for the open drive pictures. We really did not want to use them and WD was unable to provide new pics. I thought it was important to show the new platter design but certainly was not thrilled with using the old pictures. I will change them up today.noxipoo - Monday, February 5, 2007 - link
if i wanted low noise and performance similar to this drive?Accord99 - Tuesday, February 6, 2007 - link
The WD5000AAKS (The AA is the important designation):http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTool...">http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications...tails.as...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
noxipoo - Wednesday, February 7, 2007 - link
boo, no 5 year warranty.