Jump to content


Photo

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Eugene

Eugene

    Administrator

  • Member
  • 1,057 posts

Posted 18 June 2007 - 09:29 AM

WD's newest Caviar SE16, the WD7500AAKS, is the latest drive to bust past the 500 GB plateau in taking us to a new generation of capacity. It joins products already shipping from Seagate (the 750 GB Barracuda 7200.10) and Hitachi (the terabyte Deskstar 7K1000). Come with us as we take a look at how WD's newest performs in our comprehensive drive test suite.

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS Review

#2 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,513 posts

Posted 21 June 2007 - 08:09 PM

Nice, very nice. Any chance of a 1TB in the works?

The HDD market is in for a very interesting summer.

#3 KingGremlin

KingGremlin

    Member

  • Member
  • 368 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 12:05 PM

Hey Eugene, I saw this on another forum and was wondering if you could confirm or deny this:

"THe WD actually has 34 GB more than the seagate because of the way they measure their drives.
(WD = 750,000 MB = formatted 732 GB, Seagate 750,000,000,000 B = 698 GB formatted)
This data has been confirmed by WD's and Seagates spec sheets."

WD's website does in fact list the capacity as 750,156 MB, so what are the formatted capacities of these two drives?

#4 Eugene

Eugene

    Administrator

  • Member
  • 1,057 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 01:49 PM

WD's website does in fact list the capacity as 750,156 MB, so what are the formatted capacities of these two drives?


Both drives weigh in at 698.6 binary GB as reported by both Testbed4's SATA controller and Windows's Volume Properties.

#5 Stele

Stele

    Member

  • Member
  • 7 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 09:14 PM

Great work on the review, as usual!
I wonder where the bulk of the performance gain comes from - a different platform/design or just the added capacity. I'm more in the market for a 320GB-500GB model; so it'd be great if the performance improvements in the 7500AAKS would eventually (if they haven't already) make it into the lower capacities as well. However, the 7500AAKS might just turn out to be another replay of the 4000KD (which was based on the Raptor unlike the smaller capacity models then, so that if you wanted the high performance you'd have to get the 400GB drive)...

I'm guessing the performance increase is part of the characteristics of the newer AAKS series (especially considering that the smaller AAKS models also include the head ramp), which would make sense if the RE2 used in the review is based on the older KS series. In that case, the 7500AAKS scores would be reflective of the AAKS line, with performance differences due only to the different capacities. I could be wrong though... does anyone know? :)

#6 whiic

whiic

    hauptsturmführer

  • Member
  • 921 posts

Posted 04 August 2007 - 06:13 AM

The SE16 delivers a StorageReview Office DriveMark of 877 IO/s per second (IOps). This figure represents a 15% increase over the WD RE2, though it trails Hitachi's terabyte Deskstar 7K100 by 5%.

Is that a good-performing Travelstar or should that be 7K1000? :)

Nice to see so many new reviews on SR lately.
Antec 1200 | HX520W | Commando | Q6600 G0 @ 3.15GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 8GB of RAM | HD 4670 (passive)
7 TB of storage: 1x 1TB 1st gen GP, 1x 1TB 2nd gen GP, 1x 2TB 3rd gen GP, 1x 7200rpm F1, 2x 5400rpm F2 EcoGreen

#7 vanaheim

vanaheim

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 31 August 2007 - 10:53 AM

The SE16 delivers a StorageReview Office DriveMark of 877 IO/s per second (IOps). This figure represents a 15% increase over the WD RE2, though it trails Hitachi's terabyte Deskstar 7K100 by 5%.

Is that a good-performing Travelstar or should that be 7K1000? :)

Nice to see so many new reviews on SR lately.


I trust SR's reviews. For years, whenever (too often in fact) I need a new HDD, ı come to SR. I read SE16's review yesterday and bought one today. My main concern was silence. SR never let me down. I hope you keep up the good work.

With respect,

Vanaheim

#8 Jane

Jane

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 08 September 2007 - 11:00 AM

The WD site mentions "Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (PMR)." Only available with the 750 GB.

What is PMR? What are the advantages and disadvantages? I am building a computer for the first time for gaming. PMR seems to allow for more storage?

I quickly read the review and a Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia....cular_recording

If the review explains PMR, then I apologize for missing it.

I am more interested in silence, speed, and reliability.

#9 K15

K15

    Member

  • Member
  • 389 posts

Posted 15 September 2007 - 03:13 AM

The wikipedia article seems to explain it pretty well.

The advantage of PMR is primarily in increasing density. But beyond that, there isn't much difference.

In other words, a 160GB per platter drive with PMR isn't really any "better" than a 160GB per platter drive with longitudinal recording.

There is a slight benefit though in the fact that the bits are standing up next to each other, which I think increases bit density.
Posted Image



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users