Not all WD6400AAKS' are created equal...

[MACMAC]

So I just received my long awaited WD6400AAKS.

It has a manufacture date of May 9th 2008, thus fresh off the boat.

First thing that caught my eye was the firmware, 75A7B vs. 00A7B for every other WD6400AAKS that I've seen.

No big deal I thought, off to the races...

http://b.imagehost.org/0084/WD6400AAKS-1.jpg

:shakes::down:...average transfer rate is slightly lower than expected, but the access time is horrible. Obviously WD got a little crazy with the Automatic Acoustic Management (AAM), but we can fix that :up:

http://b.imagehost.org/0754/WD6400AAKS.jpg

That's slightly better! :D Sub-12ms :cool:


Access time aside, I'm not yet impressed since my (also just received) Seagate 7200.11 500GB appears to be slightly faster.


This was done on a GB 965P-DS3 v3.3, which uses the ICH8.

[tiro_uspsss]

soo.. u updated the hdd firmware? how u do that?

[One_Hertz]

they might have started using lower quality parts? You know, show off to the public that the drive is good and then gimp it? Would be interesting to test this.

[ic3m4n2005]

i think he just changed AAM, cause same firmware is shown in both pictures.
Sometimes firmware updates are given by the manufacturer, flashing is the same as with your mobo bios in dos.

[MACMAC]

Actually, all I did was reduce the AAM.

I really can't complain about the access time anymore, but I wish the average transfer rate was in 88-89MB/s range since I'm getting 86MB/s with this new 7200.11 500GB.

[Vryada]

What a coincidence: I bought the same HDD’s (one WD 6400AAKS and one Seagate 7200.11 500 gb). The WD died within hours of use. I hope you don’t experience the same.

[MACMAC]

It's the Seagate that I'm currently worried about, because it's making a click-crunch sound every hour or so.

I'm going to fill it up to the max, format, and repeat a few times to stress it.

[Vryada]

Download the SeaTools and try running all the tests. Easier than filling the drive up and formatting ad eternum.

[Gogeta]

Actually, all I did was reduce the AAM..

Please forgive me, but... how did you do this?

[MACMAC]

Please forgive me, but... how did you do this?

With WinAAM, click here (http://www.withopf.com/tools/aam/winaam-27.zip) to download it.

[Talonman]

I tried the program. It reported no ATA drives with Acoustic AAM found.

Rats! :)

[XtremeTiramisu]

I tried the program. It reported no ATA drives with Acoustic AAM found.

Rats! :)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.withopf.com/tools/aam/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.withopf.com/tools/aam/%253FOS%253DWin32-Wow64-AMD64-2-6-0-6001-E2-P2%2526CPU%253DIA32-4-1-6FB-8-1-1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:*


Try to understand what it means after google translated the page from German. I still don't get it though, hopefully you or someone else can tell us how.

[XtremeTiramisu]

Download HD Tune Pro 3.0 Trial
There is an option for AAM
The default setting of my WD5000AAKS was set to low noise (128) which is the slowest. I changed this setting all the way up to high performance (254)
Access seek time went down by 0.3
It seems this software changed is permanent and now my drive's benchmark's access seeks time is always 0.3 faster than before.

[Talonman]

Thanks for the info. I actually baught HD Tune Pro 3.0. :)

I will look into that for sure. :up:

I have been thinking...
The way I am currently using my system is running (2) 2 disk RAID arrays, that are being backed up onto 1 non-RAID HD.

I might be better off to pick up 2 more 150 GB Raptors, and run a single 4 disk RAID 0 array, and back that up to my 750 BG Caviar.

It would have faster access, and still be backed up to HD.

[NapalmV5]

75A7B vs. 00A7B

not the firmware.. just model extension

my 4 x 6400 are 00A7B w/ 1.03 firmware

what firmware @ 75A7B ?

[Buckeye]

I might be better off to pick up 2 more 150 GB Raptors, and run a single 4 disk RAID 0 array, and back that up to my 750 BG Caviar.

It would have faster access, and still be backed up to HD.

Yes ! I like what you are thinking there.
Make it an 8x Raptor Raid 0 and now your talking :clap:

[Talonman]

My precious 2 disk Raptor RAID array space is going quick! ;)
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1335/run31jm5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The question is do I wan't 2 medium fast 2 disk arrays being backed up onto a standard Caviar, or rather a single 4 disk Raptor array, backed up onto a Caviar.

I find myself keep thinking about a 4 disk array of Raptor 150's in RAID 0. Dump all my games, OS, and my few pictures on it, and just be done. Forget about my second 2 disk Samsung array, and enjoy 4 disk RAID speed.

Tough call... The way I use my system, I think 4 Raptors would be better for me? :shrug:

Sorry for the thread jack! ;)

[Buckeye]

The way I use my system, I think 4 Raptors would be better for me?

There you go !

[Talonman]

3GB/sec just sounds better than 1.5GB/sec! ;)

Medium Xtreme disk I/O anyway... :p:

[Buckeye]

Actually you have 2 HD cages, each has 3 spaces in it ? Gah I have one also, silly me...

Go 5 Raptors in Raid 0 and the back up HD. Now your talking. Use up every HD slot hehehe :)

[Talonman]

I am working with 6 SATA ports, and 1 is for CD ROM, and 1 for the Caviar for backups. ;)

I can't go for the RAID controller yet. 2 ports down, and only 4 up for grabs.

4 Raptor 150's would be my current limit. (I still got to have $$ for my GPU step up too!) :yepp:

[Buckeye]

I know they just don't put enough SATA ports on these mobo's.

[Talonman]

8 would be just right!:p:

[MadMan007]

Blah. I got my 6400AAKS from Newegg today , ran an error scan and had no problems, ran HDTach and HDTune and got 15.5+ms access time! :( Not very happy and I was reminded of when I got some Seagate 500GB drives with later, crappier firmware. I found this thread and am hoping to improve the seek times. My model # ends in -65A7B0 and my firmware as read by WD Diagnostics is 01.03B01

With WinAAM, click here (http://www.withopf.com/tools/aam/winaam-27.zip) to download it.

I tried the program. It reported no ATA drives with Acoustic AAM found.

Rats! :)

I got the same thing, from what I can gather you have to use Windows basic drivers not Intel chipset drivers? I will try that soon here...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.withopf.com/tools/aam/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.withopf.com/tools/aam/%253FOS%253DWin32-Wow64-AMD64-2-6-0-6001-E2-P2%2526CPU%253DIA32-4-1-6FB-8-1-1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:*


Try to understand what it means after google translated the page from German. I still don't get it though, hopefully you or someone else can tell us how.

Download HD Tune Pro 3.0 Trial
There is an option for AAM
The default setting of my WD5000AAKS was set to low noise (128) which is the slowest. I changed this setting all the way up to high performance (254)
Access seek time went down by 0.3
It seems this software changed is permanent and now my drive's benchmark's access seeks time is always 0.3 faster than before.

This didn't work for me. Access times are still roughly the same ~15.5ms. For a drive that is already performing properly shaving off a few tenths of a ms might be possible but these 15+ms access times aren't right in the first place. It clearly is not getting down to <13ms like it should be, I suspect this batch was from an OEM who specified low noise.

And WD level 2 tech support was useless, the tech understood what I meant, sort of, but was trying to bs me about 'benchmarks will show different information' and 'the seek time is *average* depending upon the type of file and use' as if that applies to a low-level measurement :rolleyes: He ended the call by suggesting a Velociraptor, der, thanks buddy. If this isn't just part of an OEM-spec'd quiet batch I suspect WD of either hosing products after early reviews which pisses me off royally, it's the reason I overlook Seagate now, otherwise if all drives start shipping like this it may be a push toward the 'black caviar' line since the 6400AAKs is part of the 'blue caviar' line. In any case I am irritated to no end because this is the second time in a year I've gotten drives that aren't living up to reviews.

[MadMan007]

Fixed this problem by using Hitachi's Feature tool: http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/download.htm I burned the .iso, booted it, changed it - it's pretty easy to figure out the utility - and voila!

Now I get 12.2ms seek time with the highest numerical AAM setting. Seeks are definitely more noticable though but I don't mind HD seeks, I suppose I could mess around with it a bit and find a better noise/performance balance but I'm not going to bother right now. It also seems to 'stick' after reboots and power downs. I just hope this doesn't somehow damage the drive :p I know it shouldn't because it's not running out of spec or anything but it almost feels like overclocking the HD versus how it was before ;)

[XtremeTiramisu]

Fixed this problem by using Hitachi's Feature tool: http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/download.htm I burned the .iso, booted it, changed it - it's pretty easy to figure out the utility - and voila!

Now I get 12.2ms seek time with the highest numerical AAM setting. Seeks are definitely more noticable though but I don't mind HD seeks, I suppose I could mess around with it a bit and find a better noise/performance balance but I'm not going to bother right now. It also seems to 'stick' after reboots and power downs. I just hope this doesn't somehow damage the drive :p I know it shouldn't because it's not running out of spec or anything but it almost feels like overclocking the HD versus how it was before ;)


If you're the same person who suggested the Ftool on NCIX forum, let me tell you that it's not working for me.
I tried to burn the ISO to my CD-RW and also tried to burn the ISO to a bootable CD-RW and I still cannot use ftool. If I try to run ftool under command prompt, it says the application is 16bit, so it's not compatible with 32bit or 64bit windows.

The system will boot with the bootable CD-RW that I just created with the ISO but I still can't use the ftool.........
Please let me know how you got it to work, with a step by step guide please.

[bullseye81]

I burned v210 of the feature tool using nero. The files and DOS folder show up correctly in explorer, however its not a bootable CD - "Non system drive found"

What did you use to burn the image, and were there any special settings to make it bootable?

[Pudi]

I burned v210 of the feature tool using nero.

Try to use PowerISO or Alcohol 120% instead, nero suxx badly for burning ISO imho :rolleyes:

[XtremeTiramisu]

I use the newest Nero 8 Ultra edition to burn the ISO.
After it's burned, I set the system to boot from D drive. But as soon as the system reads the CD after about 10 sec, it reboots itself...very weird.
I also tried to burn the samsung utiltity ISO to the same CD-RW and the system will boot and read its content. But unfortunately, I still can't use the samsung utiltity.......
It's the god damn compatibility issue all along...I think the easiest solution would be a windows software based utility to set AAM. Like HD Tune, if they come up with a version that's RAID/AHCI intel based driver friendly, then it's all good. I'm sure this can be done. By this day and age, I really hate to deal with DOS and its commands. With the very only exception when I use it to flash the bios using AFUDOS. That's a great tool to convert the older Maximus Formula to the next generation X48 Rampage Formula with one simple string of command.
Ok rant is over...
and I've my eyes on the upcomming WD Caviar Black 750GB/1TB new HD :)

[MACMAC]

Ok rant is over...
and I've my eyes on the upcomming WD Caviar Black 750GB/1TB new HD :)

Might want to stick with the 1TB model, since the 750GB is based on the older 250GB/platter design ;)

[MadMan007]

I didn't do anything special. Yes I had 'no boot disk' error because my system is set up with AHCI and that probably is why yours reboots. I've run in to non-booting before a few times with other iso's. It's not that hard to work around, just set the CD SATA/IDE controller to IDE or compatible mode to run the utility then change it back. It shouldn't hurt any RAID configurations because you're just booting the DOS program not changing the RAID configuration itself. I'd done the same when I did have a RAID configuration on an ICH9R and when I switched back to RAID the RAID arrays were still there and working fine - it's the same thing as when the BIOS gets reset to defaults. Don't hurt me if it hoses a RAID configuration though. :P Or just use an IDE optical drive. I know that isn't step-by-step instructions but that's the fix for problems booting off the iso, there really aren't many steps, just burn the iso, boot off the CD (change AHCI/RAID to regular IDE if needed), change the AAM, reboot to BIOS and change back to AHCI/RAID, reboot to OS and profit.

There may be a way to make it work with a BartPE CD using the standard drivers but you'd probably have to change the SATA/IDE mode anyway and the Feature Tool may not run in that environment. Another option might be to make a bootable DOS USB drive but I did it with the CD because it was the easiest way to try first.

And no I didn't put this info on NCIX forums, just ocforums. I always use some variation of 'Madman' as my nick.

Here are screenies:
Before-
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n256/Jem_1/My%20PC%20Stuff/HD%20Benches/6400AAKS_HDTuneHDTach.jpg

After-
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n256/Jem_1/My%20PC%20Stuff/HD%20Benches/6400AAKS_HDTuneHDTachFixed.jpg

[MadMan007]

Might want to stick with the 1TB model, since the 750GB is based on the older 250GB/platter design ;)

I don't think it is, check the .pdf spec sheet:
http://www.westerndigital.com/en/library/sata/2879-701276.pdf

heads/disks
1TB 6/3
750GB 5/3

So they are probably just short-stroking the 750GB model with the same platters. If the 750GB used 3 250GB platters it would need 6 heads too. All the other performance numbers are the same.

[Gogeta]

Thanks for the update, MadMan007. I'll give this tool a shot tonight...my 6400AAKS currently has access times around 15ms as well.

I'm hoping you can clarify on one thing you mentioned, however. What do you mean by the drive seems to "stick" after reboots and power offs?

[XtremeTiramisu]

Thanks a lot MadMan007.
I'm actually using AHCI config like you! I'm not using RAID if you had checked my sig.
I've a single WD5000AAKS drive setup in AHCI.
And you were absolutely right, I had to change AHCI config back to IDE in BIOS to have a successful boot from the burned .iso CD-RW.
In AHCI mode, the system would reboots as soon as it reads the disc upon boot.
I can boot with the CD-RW and use ftool to change AAM value to highest performance level 254.
I ran the HD Tune Pro AAM test in both Enabled set to 254 performance mode and Disable mode (254 by default), I get the same score of 13.4ms
Not a huge improvement becouse my particular WD5000AAKS was originally 13.7ms by default (128).
However my other WD5000AAKS has 15.7ms by default and I'll do the same to see if there will be greater seek time improvement.
One thing I've found is my other WD5000AAKS with slower seek time has higher avg read: 74mb/s
The faster seek time in ms on my other WD5000AAKS has a slower avg read : 68mb/s

[MadMan007]

Thanks for the update, MadMan007. I'll give this tool a shot tonight...my 6400AAKS currently has access times around 15ms as well.

I'm hoping you can clarify on one thing you mentioned, however. What do you mean by the drive seems to "stick" after reboots and power offs?

What I mean is the faster AAM setting remains in effect after reboots. Somewhere or another I read about WinAAM settings not staying after reboots or power downs so the person had to run WinAAM every time they booted. It could have been old outdated info though.

Tiramisu - STR shouldn't be affected by AAM much, it's primarily a function of rotational speed and areal density, in other words how fast data can be streamed sequentially off the platters. For your two drives I really don't know, they may be different firmwares I know that's affected other drives such as the Seagate 500GB 7200.10

[XtremeTiramisu]

MadMan007:

You're right about the AAM setting is not staying permanently after reboot or power down. I set the AAM to disabled and exit ftool. After a reboot, I enters ftools again to check the AAM setting and it's reverted back to Enabled at 254.
I've no idea why m WD5000AAKS is now set to Enabled but performance mode at 254 by default?!
Also like I've mentioned earlier, I must reboot the system after I changed AAM setting and exit ftool to go into bios to change IDE mode back to AHCI.
So I don't know if Ftool is useful or useless in my case...

XT

[MadMan007]

Hmm, I'd have to boot the CD again to look at the exact options. I know there is an 'OK' or maybe 'Save' button at the bottom of the AAM screen in Ftool. I do believe though that disabling it after saving it to 254 or another setting would just keep that setting because it gets overwritten in the drive firmware. In other words, you've changed it so that 254 is the default or disabled setting. Why it reverts to enabled I don't know but if you want to have a lower AAM setting just use that and leave it enabled I guess.

For me it stays permanently but I just left it enabled at 254.

[XtremeTiramisu]

Hmm, I'd have to boot the CD again to look at the exact options. I know there is an 'OK' or maybe 'Save' button at the bottom of the AAM screen in Ftool. I do believe though that disabling it after saving it to 254 or another setting would just keep that setting because it gets overwritten in the drive firmware. In other words, you've changed it so that 254 is the default or disabled setting. Why it reverts to enabled I don't know but if you want to have a lower AAM setting just use that and leave it enabled I guess.

For me it stays permanently but I just left it enabled at 254.

Yeah, both of my WD5000AAKS drives in two different systems are permanently set a Enabled 254 performance mode. One has 13.4ms seektime which is the one listed in my sig. The other one went down to exactly 14.0ms from 15.7ms originally; no noticeable difference in noise. Both drives are using the same 12.0 firmware but the slower 14.0ms drives is hooked up to a P5K-Deluxe. Both system configurations have their PCI-E freq. set at 110. What I'm not so sure of is whether the difference in ms comes from the drive itself (both have the same firmware) or the motherboard. But it makes sense to me that my Maximus Formula with Rampage 0403 bios shows slightly faster HDD benchmark than P5K-Deluxe.

XT

[Gogeta]

What I mean is the faster AAM setting remains in effect after reboots. Somewhere or another I read about WinAAM settings not staying after reboots or power downs so the person had to run WinAAM every time they booted. It could have been old outdated info though.


Haha, for some reason I thought you were talking about a physical aspect of the drive "sticking" such as the read head with a more aggressive AAM setting...I was quite skeptical. :rofl:

Reading it again now it makes perfect sense.

[Eluder]

I got one of these today and man are they fast! Didn't have to touch AAM, nor did I bother checking it since it looks like it's set to performance mode already based on seek times.

I did some tests using HDTune 2.55 while the drive was in an Antec MX-1 eSATA enclosure, and then after cloning my main drive to the WD6400AAKS, directly connected to the SATA controller on an Asus Maximus motherboard.

Here are the snapshots.

http://i29.tinypic.com/35kiebq.png
http://i26.tinypic.com/295epsm.png

[MACMAC]

It's odd/anger-inducing that the 'original' firmware is SO much faster than the new one :down:

[icywater]

i bought 4 WD6400AAKS, 2 dated 18 of march 2 dated 18 of april, the one that dated april has 18ms access time. I used features to change the AAM to 254 and everything is ok.

here is my 200Gb raid 0
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/8370/4xwd6400hdtachvi3.jpg

http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/5657/hd4xwd6400aaksfp7.jpg

and my raid 5 of the left over space

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2426/hd4x6400aaksr5qa2.jpg

[Eluder]

It's odd/anger-inducing that the 'original' firmware is SO much faster than the new one :down:

I can check which firmware my drive has, but I know my build date is June 3, 2008, so it's a brand new drive. 00A7B, is not the firmware version of the drive though...

[importpsycho]

I think I got it...
disabling AAM complete didn't do anything
but enabled high seemed to work
but why is mim transfer rate so crap?

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8673/hdtdi9.jpg

p.s. does partitioning has anything to do with HD speed?
right now it's 3xx and 3xx, with only first partition formated, couldn't wait for 640 to format....

[Soulburner]

Guys when I use the Hitachi Tool it can't find any drives connected.

If anyone has an idea why, I'd like to hear it.

Here are my results:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k245/BlackHawk2k6/Computers/Benchmarks/HDTuneWD6400AAKS.jpg

[Soulburner]

Hitachi's tool can't find my drive...if anyone is wondering, WinAAM does work, tough.

[chad]

I had to delete my array before I was able to use this disk, hope that works

[lolhalol]

ive bought three units off diff shops and they all seem to perform slightly diff... on estimates... no real screenies coz ive sold them off and went 1tb ..

[MediumRare]

Bought 2 of them from Newegg and received the "00A7B" versions. AAM was set to off by default and ran HD Tune with those default settings....

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2157/640gb1standardwr9.png

Turned on AAM and set to highest settings and there was no change. But when I set AAM to lowest setting my access rate slowed to 17.6 :down:

So I just set them back to default settings, AAM off, and back at 11.8. Looks like only the "00A7B" versions have fast access times with AAM off...others need to have it enabled and set to highest setting.

-peace out

[XSAlliN]

Guess 07A7B0 - is the worst model. It's intended for Europe so you don't have to worry about it. :)

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/5054/dwtf8.jpg

Western Digital took the Greedy way with this models. Of course all of them come with 2 platters, but first version was released for marketing purpose. They uses some quality components to build them since they have very good speed (read/Write and access time) and low noise with AAM disabled. If I set the AMM to max the access time decreases to 13.6 ms but the noise level is unbearable for me (sigh-sigh-Krrr-Krrrr-sigh-sigh-sigh-sigh- Krrr-krrr.....sigh-Krrr-Krrrr-sigh-sigh-sigh....). Constantly, similar to an old SCSI HDD like the one you use for industrial servers. About AAM, if I set it back my aces time increases to 17.9 ms. It wasn't integrated from DOS so it turned back to normal after shutdown.

Are those 3.3 ms that important? I know that a CPU is capable of millions of instructions per ms and theoretically has to wait for HDD, bust most people forget that the system has another important component which helps the CPU and the HDD when it comes to load time - the Memory. As seen in Ram Drive tests, you don't get better FPS from a high performer storage device, you get a better load time and a better access - and yeah, you could say that shows some improvement but I doubt 13.6 ms vs 16.3 MS is equivalent to that.

Anyway, wile Seagate tries to show even more respect for their customers with their latest policy, Western Digital abuses their...our trust by lowering the quality on their best selling HDD. Some how, I don't feel right knowing that I spent the same money as others if not more, for the same model (theoretically) and yet mine has different performance. I know that when you buy a CPU you gamble with his OC potential, but in that case the official specifications or the same for all models. I never seen somebody complaining about buying a E8400 which works only at 2400 Mhz.

[XSAlliN]

O yeah, here's ,my HDD Tune results:

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7200/picture001dg6.jpg

I don't care about access time but the speed potential of this HDD's... let's say I feel sick whenever I look at them. Unfortunately I don't have you option, because RMA is not option here in Romania and if it ain't broke the warranty won't do nothing about it. So thank you WD for screwing me, hope somebody screws you in the same way you.....:censored::soap::cussing:

[XSAlliN]

In the mean time, I calmed down...since the difference is to little and not worth the irrationality. :) It's been a weak since I own Vista and few setting helped me a little (besides Disabling Indexing and Superfetch):

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7512/kuhgdsnq4.jpg
I own a UPS, so I hope inexplicable Windows Crashes (like the one you get from games with poor optimizations) don't apply to this.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/9659/hfgdeh0.jpg
All functions above Disabled.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3559/asf32mj0.jpg
All functions above Enabled.

With AAM at half (default settings) I say it's decent enough. ;)

[bleiburg]

i get my own with AAM set on 254, here is some test pic

http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i153636_HDTuneWD6400AAKS00A7BRead.png
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i153635_HDTuneWD6400AAKS00A7BWrite.png
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i154671_HDTachWD6400AAKSlong.png