Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

some WD6400AAKS impressions

A

aibo

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 17, 2008
507
114
Southern California
Just received the new Western Digital SE16 640GB "WD6400AAKS" with 320GB/platter technology. Some quick tests in my 2008 Mac Pro vs the stock 320GB WD drive:

Startup (chime to desktop):
OEM 320GB - 31.8 sec
WD6400AAKS - 25.3 sec

Xbench results (OEM vs WD6400AAKS):
2311898830_5c6b881a41_o.jpg


Great drive, very quiet.
 
aibo said:
Just received the new Western Digital SE16 640GB "WD6400AAKS" with 320GB/platter technology. Some quick tests in my 2008 Mac Pro vs the stock 320GB WD drive:

Startup (chime to desktop):
OEM 320GB - 31.8 sec
WD6400AAKS - 25.3 sec

Xbench results (OEM vs WD6400AAKS):
2311898830_5c6b881a41_o.jpg


Great drive, very quiet.
Click to expand...

I just installed mine today, it is indeed a very fast and quiet drive... Now I just have to figure out how I want to configure my two drives for optimal performance (my other is a stock 500). :)
 
JrdBeau said:
How does this compare to the WD 750 in terms of performance?
Click to expand...
I pulled these numbers off the XBench site for someone with a 2008 Mac Pro and the WD7500AAKS:
Disk Test 90.18
Sequential 140.92
Uncached Write 152.81 93.83 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 162.63 92.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 95.15 27.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 193.00 97.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 66.30
Uncached Write 25.17 2.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 216.85 69.42 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 98.85 0.70 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 170.18 31.58 MB/sec [256K blocks]

So as good as the WD7500AAKS performs, it looks like the WD6400AAKS beats it in every test.
 
Firefly2002 said:
What they need is much higher areal density... as it is, Raptors are generally slower than TB drives.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I agree with "in general". The raptors will likely perform better at IOPS.

I agree that with large sequential IO patterns; reads or writes, then yes, the large TB drives will have better performance.
 
aibo said:
I pulled these numbers off the XBench site for someone with a 2008 Mac Pro and the WD7500AAKS:
Disk Test 90.18
Sequential 140.92
Uncached Write 152.81 93.83 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 162.63 92.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 95.15 27.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 193.00 97.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 66.30
Uncached Write 25.17 2.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 216.85 69.42 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 98.85 0.70 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 170.18 31.58 MB/sec [256K blocks]

So as good as the WD7500AAKS performs, it looks like the WD6400AAKS beats it in every test.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info!
 
subaqua said:
I don't know if I agree with "in general". The raptors will likely perform better at IOPS.

I agree that with large sequential IO patterns; reads or writes, then yes, the large TB drives will have better performance.
Click to expand...

All I know is that I temporarily auditioned a Raptor as my Boot Drive in my Mac Pro.

The Hitachi 1TB beats it handily in app loading times, boot times, acoustic comfort, and just about every other way (in real life).

And for the same price (roughly)... I got 1TB of space vs. 150 Gig.

Raptor was fabulous in it's day... REALLY long in the tooth now.

IMHO, of course!
 
I ordered 4 for my MP! : )

Now I need to figure out what RAID I'm going to use ... and where to order the CalDIGIT card!

Raptors ... old news. Waste of a bay IMO. Speed = Striping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back