WD Caviar Black 1 TB, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, WD1002FAEX

Two 500GB platters?

WD Caviar Black 1 TB, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, WD1002FAEX
http://wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?DriveID=792

WD Caviar Black 1 TB, SATA 3 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, WD1001FAES
http://forums.storagereview.com/inde...faes-revealed/

WD Caviar Blue 1 TB, SATA 3 Gb/s, 32 MB Cache, WD10EALS
http://wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=793

Updated: WD1002FAEX is available in Japan

http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...mage/swwd1.gifhttp://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...mage/swwd3.gif

http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...13/etc_wd.html

could you grabe their graph and pic? i don't want to join their nice forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hondacity

could you grabe their graph and pic? I don't want to join their nice forum

---

+1.

"So we were messing around with the MyBook 3.0 external drive this weekend and went to see what was inside. It's the 1TB WD1001FAES, which is a Caviar Black with 64MB cache."

Quote:

---

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8589/5yihk76e.png


Here are a few benchmarks to compare the new model with the current WD1001FALS (32MB cache).

*Disclaimer - Benchmarking was done with one drive going through the motherboard's SATA and the other going through USB 3.0, so they are not on equal terms. We'll do more detailed work in the review.


http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5693/yk995a3h.png


http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8240/ukezntfk.png


http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/5087/byv7r7h8.png


http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/8651/ozc8mabz.png

Here are fresh benchmarks of the WD1001FAES when connected directly via SATA instead of USB.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8706/4t4p5vtm.png

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1681/hvlqr6nl.png

---

Looks like Samsung F3 is a lot faster. Maybe it needs a new firmware or something...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

Looks like Samsung F3 is a lot faster. Maybe it needs a new firmware or something...

---

Lot faster?

Could you show me some bench results?

How can sequential reads/writes be an indication? WD always seem to optimise their drives for random reads/writes? :shrug:

http://www.3dnews.ru/_imgdata/img/2009/12/28/155917.gif

http://www.3dnews.ru/_imgdata/img/2009/12/28/155918.gif

i need to buy some hard drives and was waiting for the 64mb cache 1tb blacks to become available .. maybe i should just get samsung or the current 1tb blacks

Damn that is a lot slower, and bested by a 500GB F3 to add further insult.

Not sure if storagereview, when they were connected via SATA, were doing a read or write test though.
Zalbard's was write, maybe theirs was read, but isn't read typically faster anyway?

*edit* I see Zalbard's added read too now.

I wonder if WD's other new model with the SATA 6G(3) interface is any better? WD1002FAEX
I know the interface itself is irrelevant as SATA 3G(2) is still plenty of headroom, but maybe it's fw is less dodgy?

Looks a bit slow to me. Samsung F3 usually score 116~120MB/s avg read in HD Tune and it's really silent and good drive. I got the 500GB single platter version for OS drive and it doesn't make a lot of noise at all and runs very cool. I was a WD fan for the past 2 years or so but I'm quickly converting to Samsung now with the F2 series for cheap and reliable storage and F3 for cheap and fast drives, it's a great improvement since F1 series IMO. Samsung F2 has also better reliability than WD's Green series, difficult to say about F3 as it's so new still but so far so good.

Quote:

---

Damn that is a lot slower, and bested by a 500GB F3 to add further insult.

---

Some of the best F3 500GB, punch even harder "SATA 3" :yepp:....I at least don't need SATA3...USB 3.0 is another story...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

http://www.3dnews.ru/_imgdata/img/2009/12/28/155918.gif

---

Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jalyst

Damn that is a lot slower, and bested by a 500GB F3 to add further insult.

Not sure if storagereview, when they were connected via SATA, were doing a read or write test though.
Zalbard's was write, maybe theirs was read, but isn't read typically faster anyway?

I wonder if WD's other new model with the SATA 6G(3) interface is any better? WD1002FAEX
I know the interface itself is irrelevant as SATA 3G(2) is still plenty of headroom, but maybe it's fw is less dodgy?

---

the pics here in this thread were done with hdtune pro. the guy at storage review uses the freeware version hdtune which only benches the read speed.

apart from that, i don't know if there are differences between the results from hdtune 2.55 and hdtune pro 3.5. different versions might end up with different results due to changed testing characteristics - no idea.

i have to agree though. seems a bit slow no matter how you look at it :(
i'm using wd drives ever since (they were always one of the fastest and most reliable drives in my book), but wd drives always cost a bit more compared to their competitor's drives. i don't think they can justify the premium prices anymore if the drives are that much slower than the drives from other brands.

hmm decisions decisions .. the 1tb samsung f3s are like 89 .. should just get 4 of them .. but the 64mb cache has to make some sort of difference right ?
i really need some hds =(

Hmm. Curious to see where this goes after a bit more testing.

random read/write speeds are quite good

i get ~0.5mb on my Spinpoint F1 data drives (Samung SSD is my system disk) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

the pics here in this thread were done with hdtune pro. the guy at storage review uses the freeware version hdtune which only benches the read speed.

---

I see, thanks for clarifying.

500GB platters?
WD Caviar Blue 1 TB, SATA 3 Gb/s, 32 MB Cache, 7200 RPM WD10EALS
http://wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=793

My seagate 7200.12 1TB

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...31000528AS.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

random read/write speeds are quite good

i get ~0.5mb on my Spinpoint F1 data drives (Samung SSD is my system disk) ;)

---

That was my point. WD have faster random read/writes, but people still think sequential read/writes are the end of it all

Also, maybe the drive will be better optimised when its sold as a SATA drive and not inside a usb enclosure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

http://www.3dnews.ru/_imgdata/img/2009/12/28/155917.gif

http://www.3dnews.ru/_imgdata/img/2009/12/28/155918.gif

---

It's just a simple synthetic benchmark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightSpeed

That was my point. WD have faster random read/writes, but people still think sequential read/writes are the end of it all

Also, maybe the drive will be better optimised when its sold as a SATA drive and not inside a usb enclosure.

---

But isnt random r/w demonstrated by access time?
The F3 still seems to have an edge there, or at least be equal judging by posted tests.

Of course the WD may well improve yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

It's just a simple synthetic benchmark.

---

Well, you wanted me to show you some bench results...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

It's just a simple synthetic benchmark.

---

What would you suggest is a more rigorous, well-rounded, comparison?

as much as i wanted caviar blacks .. i got too good of a deal on the samsung f3s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

Well, you wanted me to show you some bench results...

---

You're right.:D

Yes it looks like that your Samsung F3 is a faster in linear read and average access time.

Can you bench it with CrystalMark?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

You're right.:D

Yes it looks like that your Samsung F3 is a faster in linear read and average access time.

---

These are not even mine, took them from this site (not the best source probably, but their hard drive reviews are usually decent, besides testing an HDD is not rocket science).
I have an 1TB F3, though, can post some benches if it's really necessary, I was just too lazy and used an online source. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Can you bench it with CrystalMark?

---

Hm, sure!

Edit: here it is.

Warning: I think I am far from the perfect person to perform this test... I haven't defragged since I've got the drive 5 months ago and I only have 20GB of space left so my score is messed up, I suggest using some reviews for the proper comparison. But since I promised to post...

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...alDiskMark.jpg

It's running off ICH10R, ACHI enabled.
Obviously reads should be waaaaaaay higher... a clean install on an empty drive would've fixed this.

I can defrag and post another screenshot, but since my drive is full the score is obviously still going to be lower than it should be (outer sectors are taken, etc...).

WD1002FAEX is available in Japan

http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...mage/swwd1.gifhttp://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...mage/swwd3.gif

http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...13/etc_wd.html

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

I have personally replaced 5x as many Samsung drives and 10x Toshiba drives as any other brand. Very very rarely do I have to replace WD drives in my customers systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay more money and have a little less speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jetjaguar

as much as i wanted caviar blacks .. i got too good of a deal on the samsung f3s

---

Newegg deal for $75 with an enclosure, right? I got three :up: Upgrading all my systems at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

I have personally replaced 5x as many Samsung drives and 10x Toshiba drives as any other brand. Very very rarely do I have to replace WD drives in my customers systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay more money and have a little less speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.

---

samsung didnt always use thier own fab so the old ones are the same as the old hitatchi/ibm, and the newer ones from the 501j/f1 and newer, the main problems are that samsung was one of the 1st to go to 32MB of cashe and they looked DOA on bad bioses and there are a seemingly large amount that have physical damage that ive seen from newegg but they now ship in a foam sleeve and not just the plastic.

the only one that i dont trust anymore is seagate

on topic
is this even an impovment other than it should only come in 500GB platters with the sata6 drives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

on topic
is this even an impovment other than it should only come in 500GB platters with the sata6 drives

---

so the sata3 won't only come in 500gb platters now too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

I have personally replaced 5x as many Samsung drives and 10x Toshiba drives as any other brand. Very very rarely do I have to replace WD drives in my customers systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay more money and have a little less speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.

---

<:D> Ill stick with samsung even if they are slightly faster.Why? Entirely due to their low failure rate of current drives on the market.
Due to recent cases all hdd makers admitted to have failure rates annualized and compounded .
also judging by reviews and user forums on various sites WD's hdd failure rate is in the top 3.

i have personally replaced 4x as many WD drives as other brands(i have 4 Samsungs working perfectly and 1 WD which broke after 6 months) so my statistics show that WD has a failure rate at least 4 times higher than other brands.
i also have 1(one) Toshiba drive which is still working after 4 years 24/7,so my statistics show that WD's drive failure rate is in realitay maybe even higher compared to specific manufacturers.

Very very rarely do I have to replace Samsung drives in my customers/friends systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay the same money and have the same or more speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.</:D>

<:yepp:>also i would like to point out that when it comes to storage i dont really care if the storage device is 10% faster or slower than any other x brand as long as its reliable.

if i would ever need storage speed in excess of 100MB/s i would buy an intel G2 or the like.<:yepp:>

Nice, but F3 is still better value.

Can we got off the fanboy x make is better y make debate please?
None is better than the other, it changes all the time, sometimes one is a market leader in perf/reliability, other times not.
Granted Seagate has had an unusually long run of mediocrity, but for many years fanboys religiously expounded upon its virtues
Save it for a thread that's focussed on such a (IMO) pointless debate, particularly for desktop class drives.

I wonder why the 2TB Caviar Black & the RE4 versions perform better than the WD1001FAES. Is this really a 500GB/platter 7200RPM drive?

I don't think this is it's true performance, wait for the full review from storagereview (linked to earlier)
Also 4x 500GB platter (2TB RE4, & Black) Vs 2x 500GB platter (WD1001FAES) is not a really a fair comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jalyst

Can we got off the fanboy x make is better y make debate please?
None is better than the other, it changes all the time, sometimes one is a market leader in perf/reliability, other times not.
Granted Seagate has had an unusually long run of mediocrity, but for many years fanboys religiously expounded upon its virtues
Save it for a thread that's focussed on such a (IMO) pointless debate, particularly for desktop class drives.

---

How is it being a fanboy when it's true??? Samsung F3s are a better value and reviews clearly show that.

You're right it does change but at the moment that isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

---

You can't make such claims based on the reviews of some people. For instance, Samsung sold 2 Million drives and 20,000 drives failed (1 percent) while Seagate sold 1 Million drives and 10,000 drives failed (1 percent as well). What do you think you will read more often on teh internetz? "Samsung teh suckz" or "Seagate teh suckz"?

Without internal data directly from the manufacturer, all you did was making assumptions based on ... what?

All that's left is your personal experience and with that experience, you have good reason to stick with Western Digital. Especially with hard drives people (me included) like to stick with what has proven to be good. Nobody cares about defect hard drives, but the data is what's important.

I don't want to doubt your experience, but as always you will find someone with the exact opposite of your experience.

WD1002FAEX Tested
http://avenuel.tistory.com/568
Translated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

I have personally replaced 5x as many Samsung drives and 10x Toshiba drives as any other brand. Very very rarely do I have to replace WD drives in my customers systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay more money and have a little less speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.

---

Agreed. WD is the most reliable HDD brand. I've seen too many dead Samsung HDDs.:shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

WD1002FAEX Tested
http://avenuel.tistory.com/568
Translated

---

Much better. True 7200RPM 500GB/platter transfer rates.

I wonder if WD clears its last stock of 333GB platters with the first batches of the WD1001FAES drive (at least those that are to be used for the external hdds) and it shows poorer performance.

WD Caviar Blue 1 TB, 32 MB Cache, WD10EALS listed in Europe
http://salzburg.com.geizhals.at/eu/a503267.html

Western Digital SATA 6Gb/sec 1TB Caviar Black (WD1002FAEX) Review
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

Two 500GB platters?
..

WD Caviar Black 1 TB, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, WD1002FAEX
http://wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?DriveID=792


WD Caviar Black 1 TB, SATA 3 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, WD1001FAES
http://forums.storagereview.com/inde...faes-revealed/

---

I could never understand WD's naming-logic.

SATA3 6Gb/s won't make any difference for this kind of drive. The question is if this WD1001FAES is a 500GB/platter too? In case these 2 would perform exactly the same, and then I don't get the logic behind 2 identical drives either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PCPER article

Caviar Black 1TB: Great drive. I was expecting a little more, but not because of the SATA 6Gb/sec interface. With dual actuators at play, a massive 64MB cache, 500GB platters, and the same dual core CPU of the 2TB models, this drive should have at least matched those other drives in performance.

---

I agree with that. As it currently stands, I'm leaning towards 2 Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TBs to replace my current RE2 RAID-0 array.

Maybe WD wants high-performance buyers like myself to pay it more for the top performing drives and saves some performance add ons only for the ultra expensive 4-platter drives. The last thing I want to verify before going for the Samsungs, is the price & performance of the 1.5TB RE4 drive. If it performs like the 2TB model and its pricing is attractive, it might give me another thought before I make my purchase

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136320

is the 32mb 500g caviar black a good raid 0 drive? i wanna try raid 0 out since ssd r to expensive

PcPer review: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=870&type=expert

I finally ordered 3 Spinpoint F3 1TB drives for €81 each. The total of €243 is still cheaper than the single 2TB WD Caviar Black drive that is at €271, let alone the RE4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

I have personally replaced 5x as many Samsung drives and 10x Toshiba drives as any other brand. Very very rarely do I have to replace WD drives in my customers systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay more money and have a little less speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.

---

God thats laughable, considering my experience is the exact opposite. Except a green drive I picked up last year (which still runs a tad hotter than Samsung drives).. all my WD drive went dead by chirp of death. Where as I've had no problems whatsoever with Samsungs spinpoint series drives. And its not a little faster, Samsung F1-F3s have consistently walloped WDs non raptor offerings for the last 3 years. FYI samsungs have the lowest failure rate, most people who own WDs drives are like those who owned maxtors, not bothered enough to report a failure. OEM samsungs from 10-5 years ago were pretty :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty, but I honestly have no reservations stating their drives hands down the best now.

So what's the story with the 1001FAES; is it to eventually replace the WD1001FALS?

Will it always have 500GB platters now like the WD1002FAEX (which also has two actuators)
If so is the only difference between the 1002FAEX and 1001FAES the SATA interface?

Is there going to be similar sorts of differentiation with the 2TB Blacks & 2TB RE's?

Quote:

---

Western Digital's 6Gbps Caviar Black 1TB Review
Western Digital's Caviar Black 1TB is the first two-platter, 7,200-RPM drive to use the company's latest 500GB platters. The new Black is also WD's first step into 6Gbps SATA territory, so let's see how it performs in a battery of performance, noise, and power consumption tests.

---

http://techreport.com/articles.x/18467

WD Caviar Black 1 TB WD1002FAEX is $120 @Amazon
http://techreport.pricegrabber.com/s...p_id=186278874

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jalyst

So what's the story with the 1001FAES; is it to eventually replace the WD1001FALS?

Will it always have 500GB platters now like the WD1002FAEX (which also has two actuators)
If so is the only difference between the 1002FAEX and 1001FAES the SATA interface?

Is there going to be similar sorts of differentiation with the 2TB Blacks & 2TB RE's?

---

guess no one knows...

Just got to test the Spinpoint F3 3xRAID-0. Performance is far from making the most of the drives, but whatever. Make the SATA6 would help here.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3485/hdtach2.png
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6251/hdtune2.png
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3167/hdtuner.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

http://techreport.com/articles.x/18467

---

He's planning some follow-up reviews for the F3 and Deskstar too.
Looking forward to seeing them all compared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orion24

Just got to test the Spinpoint F3 3xRAID-0. Performance is far from making the most of the drives, but whatever. Make the SATA6 would help here.

---

Extreme with 3 drives :eek:
I stopped at two drives for my data, otherwise I won't feel serene

my setup of 2 F3 RAID 0

http://img7.hostingpics.net/pics/882357RaidData.jpg


beating the transfer rates of my 2 VelociRaptor 150 RAID 0

http://img7.hostingpics.net/pics/202830RaidSystem.jpg

seriously, my various drives havent died at all on me and they havent shown any symptomps of dying. What matters with HDDs is the supply of power. If the power supplied is stable the only way it's gonna fail is factory defect, and so far i havent experienced no such thing. You guys definitely have seen how many HDDs die when used with some no-name external case, havent you.
I use 11 HDDs from various brands (Samsung, WD, Seagate, Fujitsu) on my PC and they have been running well for about 4 years now.
All i care about buying HDD is the price per gig, then performance, then compatibility (i still remember the case with maxtor and nF4 back then). I think right now, aside from the performance, 1.5TB HDD looks good for the price. 2TB is still quite expensive.

why bother with SATA 6Gbps controllers on HDDs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

WD Caviar Black 1 TB WD1002FAEX is $120 @Amazon
http://techreport.pricegrabber.com/s...p_id=186278874

---

Makes the 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 a much better value. The 1TB F3 went for $76 @newegg couple weeks ago... I'm waiting for them to come back in stock in hopes to get another. :D

WD Caviar Black 1 TB WD1002FAEX Tested
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/..._motherboard/2

WD Caviar Black 1 TB WD1002FAEX is available $120 @newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&nm_mc=OTC-RSS

WD1002FAEX vs WD1001FALS vs Intel X25-M SSD 80GB in RAID 0
http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=231793

If you put 4 F3 in Raid0, it will hit over 400 MB/s.

WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0 vs WD1001FALS-00E3A0 (2 x 500GB platters?)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/sto...2_3.html#sect1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orion24

Just got to test the Spinpoint F3 3xRAID-0. Performance is far from making the most of the drives, but whatever. Make the SATA6 would help here.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3485/hdtach2.png
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6251/hdtune2.png
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3167/hdtuner.png

---

wow that's great for 3 in raid, wich stripe are you using ?

here's mine on 3 x 500GB Seagate 7200.11 using 128k RAID 0

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8...io20101725.png

Seems like 2x scales way better then 3x :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

Seems like 2x scales way better then 3x :)

---

Are you referring to the F3 1TB (HD103SJ)?
Or the prior poster's 500GB Seagate 7200.11?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jalyst

Are you referring to the F3 1TB (HD103SJ)?
Or the prior poster's 500GB Seagate 7200.11?

---

dunno

i went for a cheap option just gettin another 500GB used one an added to the raid, dont know if worth to buy those sammis, i just wonder if the I7 and mobo will help on that...im on P45

well guys i went for this F3's and im very impressed, love them !

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5635/p1050832.jpg

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7...to20102256.png

cheers :toast:
Sergio

Just do a RAID-0 of 2x X25-V if you want a fast OS/Apps Boot volume (or 1x C300 64 or 1x Vertex 2 50GB+)
Then a couple of WD20EARS-00MVWB0 for Storage/BU. (3x 667GB platters instead of 4x 500GB)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jalyst

Just do a RAID-0 of 2x X25-V if you want a fast OS/Apps Boot volume (or 1x C300 64 or 1x Vertex 2 50GB+)
Then a couple of WD20EARS-00MVWB0 for Storage/BU. (3x 667GB platters instead of 4x 500GB)

---

thanks mate

i already have an Intel X25 G2 as boot and some fast app and very happy with the F3's raid :up:

Good for you! SSD + HDD = FTW! ;)