Eugene

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS

9 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The HDD market is in for a very interesting summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Perpendicular_recording

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now