Western Digital Launches Quiet Single Platter 320GB Desktop Drive !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

I agree, this is xtremesystems, not xtremelyquietsystems, I think we can deal with a few more dba(s) in exchange for faster hard drives

---

xtremesilent.
:welcome:

any sightings of the 640GB in UK?

even OCUK have taken down their product page :/

Is there really a Difference between the old 320 to the new (with less plates0 ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lior307

Is there really a Difference between the old 320 to the new (with less plates0 ??

---

I believe the old 320GB used two 250GB platters. The new one uses a single 334GB platter. Reduced access time will be the biggest difference, though probably not worth the upgrade from the old version to the new unless you get a great deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai Robinson

I still rather have a Hitachi Deskstar :)

---

"Ditto" on that brother:D WD makes junk drives from my personal experiences with them outside of the Raptors series. They run Hotter die quicker and make a incredible amount of noise in seek:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gogeta

I believe the old 320GB used two 250GB platters. The new one uses a single 334GB platter. Reduced access time will be the biggest difference, though probably not worth the upgrade from the old version to the new unless you get a great deal.

---

Can you Explain ?? (2 x 250GB plate = 500GB)
Did they disable / closed access ??

Nice i have 4x400 GB WD Raid edition's i think i will replace the main Raid 0 windows disk's for 2x 640 GB :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lior307

Is there really a Difference between the old 320 to the new (with less plates0 ??

---

Yes. About 25 MB/sec worth. The old ones have better access times though...I really do hope that has something to do with AAM being enabled, and me not being able to change it.

I have 2 of each, for a total of 4 320gb WD3200AAKS's. I've tried RAID 0 performance via. ICH9R, and single drive performance.

Old 2 platter versions (single vs. RAID 0):

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/271...aid0qq8.th.jpg

Single Platter (one drive only...i didn't save RAID 0 benches?):

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/876...dtacxk2.th.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gogeta

I believe the old 320GB used two 250GB platters. The new one uses a single 334GB platter. Reduced access time will be the biggest difference, though probably not worth the upgrade from the old version to the new unless you get a great deal.

---

I'm thinking that it used two 166GB platters, numbers don't add up otherwise. scaling from the 2platter 320GB to the 1platter version exceeds what one would expect from a 33% increase in platter density, plus isn't linear density only increased only in a logarithmic fashion? EG: it takes a 4fold increase in density to get a two fold increase in per line density. Or am I wrong? does anyone know if the number of tracks(for lack of a better term) are maintained constant, or do they go up with the rest of the disc such that the track increase is proportionate to the linear density increase?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakfromyou

Yes. About 25 MB/sec worth. The old ones have better access times though...I really do hope that has something to do with AAM being enabled, and me not being able to change it.

I have 2 of each, for a total of 4 320gb WD3200AAKS's. I've tried RAID 0 performance via. ICH9R, and single drive performance.

Old 2 platter versions (single vs. RAID 0):

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/271...aid0qq8.th.jpg

Single Platter (one drive only...i didn't save RAID 0 benches?):

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/876...dtacxk2.th.jpg

---

I have read something on Anandtech about the 320 GB version. It has less power and noise but was also slower then the 640 GB version. Is was intended like this so they can use it in low power / low noise systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astennu

I have read something on Anandtech about the 320 GB version. It has less power and noise but was also slower then the 640 GB version. Is was intended like this so they can use it in low power / low noise systems.

---

So do they come with acoustic and power management enabled by default (making it possible for us to disable that crap), or is it permanent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astennu

I have read something on Anandtech about the 320 GB version. It has less power and noise but was also slower then the 640 GB version. Is was intended like this so they can use it in low power / low noise systems.

---

First, explain to me what "intelliseek" is.

I agree with you though. 320gb these days...it isn't that much storage when it comes to all the HD media floating around, but they are quick, super quiet (hehe), and cheap. (if you can find one)

By the way, beginnings of serial numbers that are single platter (WD3200KSRTL Retail box): WMAT, WCAT.

I think i see a trend :O

I'm just trying to help some of you guys out. Plus, if I ever run into somebody staring at the bottom of a hard drive box, i'll know exactly what they're doing if it's a SATA 320gb. I love working retail.

dont F1 have some issues with p35 chipsets?

thinking of pickin one up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strange|ife

dont F1 have some issues with p35 chipsets?

thinking of pickin one up

---

Oh Yes!

Avoid F1 drives + Asus P5K Premium!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shiznit93

So do they come with acoustic and power management enabled by default (making it possible for us to disable that crap), or is it permanent?

---

I believe its permanent:

Quote From Anandtech:

Quote:

---

The one area that really disappointed us with the WD 320GB drive was its pitiful random access times at 16.4ms. After a lengthy conversation with Western Digital, we now understand why the drive performed so poorly in this test. This also explains the good but not great application results in general. Granted, the drive still performs well, but the initial specifications lead us to believe that performance should have been greatly improved over previous generation drives. Western Digital explained the single platter 320GB drive is aimed at the entry-level market where thermals and acoustics are critical for mass acceptance of the drive by the OEM and retail customers.

WD sacrificed a small amount of performance on the 320GB drive to meet these goals. This was by design and is not an indication of the performance potential of their new technology. In fact, these same 320GB platters will be used in single-sided form eventually for the 160GB drives. According to statistics, the 160GB drives have quickly replaced the 80GB products to become the new "sweet spot" in the general market. As the capacities increase, the typical user for these products normally expects a balance between performance, thermals, and acoustics. With that in mind, WD tuned the 640GB drive for additional performance at the expense of acoustics.

As far as acoustic testing, this drive posted excellent results, although thermals were higher than we expected considering the Samsung drive is carrying an additional platter and set of heads. Even during heavy seeks, noise levels remained muted, and at idle the drive's acoustical footprint was almost silent. The numbers suggest that the 640GB is very close to the 320GB drive in acoustics. In most ways it is, but we could definitely hear a difference in the seek operations between the two drives. The Samsung F1 offered similar acoustics to the WD SE16 640GB drive but during seeks the drive had a slightly heavier tone that showed up in the recordings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biker

Oh Yes!

Avoid F1 drives + Asus P5K Premium!!

---

Just for OS? What if I was using it just for storage on a P35 chipset?

When is the next Raptor ever coming out? 36<74<150.. and when it's doubled again to 300GB, it would almost be too late because 300 is hardly enough nowadays. Perhaps WD is working on a much bigger Raptor now that is like 400 or 600GB?

EDIT: I just found the answer after reading a bit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Not anytime soon, raptor platters are much smaller then regular platters, to keep access times down low

---

so when is the next raptor coming out?? and how big??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

"Ditto" on that brother:D WD makes junk drives from my personal experiences with them outside of the Raptors series. They run Hotter die quicker and make a incredible amount of noise in seek:(

---

Err this might have been true back in 2003. Maybe explain why only WD's and Samsung drives are found on SPCR's recommended list. I don't think Hitachi has ever been on that list for good reason - too loud. I have made two mistakes in my HD experiences and those are the times I've bought non-WD drives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

Err this might have been true back in 2003. Maybe explain why only WD's and Samsung drives are found on SPCR's recommended list. I don't think Hitachi has ever been on that list for good reason - too loud. I have made two mistakes in my HD experiences and those are the times I've bought non-WD drives.

---

Indeed. I have had major problems with Maxtors dieing (5 of them) all the time. And also a killed hitachi 80gb and a old Quantum Fireball.

Never had a dead WD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astennu

I believe its permanent:

Quote From Anandtech:

---

Yeah I was suprised when I read that article too. Was hoping of some way to switch off the acoustic benefits for better seek times.

"Western Digital explained the single platter 320GB drive is aimed at the entry-level market where thermals and acoustics are critical for mass acceptance of the drive by the OEM and retail customers"

I think the key in that quote is meeting OEM demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XS Janus

I noticed in that test posted that 640AAKS comes wit AAM disabled.
When the guy turned it on access time was comparable wit 320AAKS.

That could mean that 320AAKS comes with the AAM feature turned on cause they want to gain popularity and place the drive as Silent PC drive of choice.
It would make sense if you want to gain HTPC builders on your side. :)

---

I just put together rig with 2x320GB WD AAKS drives in RAID 0, and a 640GB WD AAKS for backup.

Can you help me answer these questions:

1. How do I tell if I have the 2x160GB platters for the 320GB drives, or the single platter (WD3200AAKS-00B3A0 --or-- WD3200AAKS-00SBA0)? Do I have to open the machine and pull them out on the drives themselves, or can is there a way to tell in an application? In other words, from within Vista, can I see the right number using a diagnostic application like MSInfo32?
2. What is AAM?
3. How do I turn AAM on/off?

Thanks in advance...

1. You can try just by going into device menager and clicking properties of the drive. If not I thing HD Tach will show you a detailed product number when loading the drives. ("The full PN for 320GB off of this new platform is WD3200AAKS-00B3A0. “B3” is the differentiator. B3 = A single platter drive."). Or to some HD tach runs and see/post results:cool:

2. AAM - Automatic Acoustic Management Link

3. I think unfortunately on 320GB drives you cant (in the future who knows, maybe).

---Damn, I spend to much time on this board lately...:peace:

1). Western Digital WD3200AAKS-00B3A0 320GB, this the partnumber for the new platter,
I cant anwser the other 2 questions.

* edit I did a test on my WD6400AAKS, if i put AAM value of 128 i got a accestime of 15.6ms but it makes really less noise, however when i jack it up to 254, i got a accestime of 12.6ms and it is noticeable louder in seek, but nothing much to bother so I leave it at 254

So from my quessing the 320GB got a locked AAM of 128 thus higher accestime and less noise, as my WD6400AAKS shows a default of 128 , however HDtune put it automaticly after install on 254.

meh