Davin

Western Digital Caviar WD2000BB/JB

Recommended Posts

How odd that the BB and JB have different acoustic levels, especially since they *should* be otherwise identical mechanically. Even stranger is how the BB doesn't perform as well as the older, 1200BB. Maybe too much time was spent working on the firmware for the JB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great review, but again you were too anxoius to use the SAFE buy thinggy. Eugene, you must use it all the time. If you really want to seea drive, wait until u guys review the IBM 180 GXP, and then the MAXTOR PLUS LINE 2.

I cannot wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great review, but again you were too anxoius to use the SAFE buy thinggy. Eugene, you must NOT use it all the time. If you really want to seea drive, wait until u guys review the IBM 180 GXP, and then the MAXTOR PLUS LINE 2.

I cannot wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great review, but again you were too anxoius to use the SAFE buy thinggy.  Eugene, you must NOT use it all the time.

That argument wears thin in this case... (don't just make generalizations because the 'cuda V's award is controversial) Each drive must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Do you think Eugene shouldn't have given the JB the SafeBuy award (which did capture top performance scores) just to avoid highlighting the issue again? :roll:

Notice that only half of the drives reviewed in this review earned a SafeBuy. I didn't think the 'cuda V was worthy, and got a lot of decent discussion (pro and con) that will probably factor into our awards in the coming weeks and months ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errata on the front page announcement of the review :

For nearly a year now, Western Digital's Caviar WD1200 series has held the title as the fastest ATA hard disks around. WD has followed up their hit with the 200-gigabyte WD2000. Join us as we see how the standard 2-megabyte buffer BB and 8-megabyte JB varieties stack up!

Western Digital Caviar WD1200BB/WD1200JB Review

The part in bold should be WD2000BB/WD2000JB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the review:

Unfortunately, when one purchases, say, a WD1200BB, there is no easy way to tell whether it incorporates 40 GB or 60 GB platters. There are ways to tell -after- the purchase, yet that may create additional headache for the consumer. Before the WD2000BB, 1200BB's always incorporated 40 GB platters. Today, your 1200BB may actually be a 120 GB WD2000BB. Generally speaking, higher density is preferable. Its understandable that blurring the lines makes it easier to move inventory from a manufacturer; these steps unfortunately hinder the savvy consumer. Be aware that the only way to ensure that you're getting the latest-generation Caviar (the 60 GB/platter design) before you actually open it up and take a look at it is to purchase a 200 GB drive. 

The article mentioned that if I buy a WD800JB today it could be the previous generation 40gb platter configuration, or the new generation with 60gb platters. How can I distinguish this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the review: 

Unfortunately, when one purchases, say, a WD1200BB, there is no easy way to tell whether it incorporates 40 GB or 60 GB platters. There are ways to tell -after- the purchase, yet that may create additional headache for the consumer. Before the WD2000BB, 1200BB's always incorporated 40 GB platters. Today, your 1200BB may actually be a 120 GB WD2000BB. Generally speaking, higher density is preferable. Its understandable that blurring the lines makes it easier to move inventory from a manufacturer; these steps unfortunately hinder the savvy consumer. Be aware that the only way to ensure that you're getting the latest-generation Caviar (the 60 GB/platter design) before you actually open it up and take a look at it is to purchase a 200 GB drive. 

The article mentioned that if I buy a WD800JB today it could be the previous generation 40gb platter configuration, or the new generation with 60gb platters. How can I distinguish this?

You cannot until you purchase it then you need to decode the serial number. Unfortunately I do not know the specifics, you need to contact WD for that or search the forum since there were posts about how to tell the 40GB/platter configuration. The 60+GB/platter decoding should ge simmilar

Free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the review: 

The article mentioned that if I buy a WD800JB today it could be the previous generation 40gb platter configuration, or the new generation with 60gb platters.  How can I distinguish this?

There are three ways I'm aware of for telling them apart:

1. Serial number prefix (you'll have to contact WD for the prefixes for 40 vs. 60 GB/platter).

2. Physically different covers.

3. Slight difference in total sectors on drive (there's a thread in the Computers forum on this, with info originally from Tom's Hardware).

Personally, I highly doubt any 800JB drives out there will have the newer 60 GB/platter disks, since it's not a nice multiple of 60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very very VERY strong drive by Western Digital.

Diskzilla for sure!

The StorageReview 2002 marks are especially high for an IDE drive.

Bravi!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, did you notice that WD2000JB beats X15-36LP in High-End and Bootup DriveMarks?

Leo

That's nice, but the X15-36LP is relatively old. One should compare it to the 15.3. Although it shows that ATA drives are closer than ever to SCSI in performance. However, the latter always provides the hard drive performance champion (15.3).

Keep in mind that the "drivezilla" will cost more than a 18 gig 15.3 (probably). For someone who needs performance and not size, the 15.3 is the better choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty concerned though about those high seek times. The WD2000JB gained about 1 ms compared to the WD1200JB. That's not a good thing, and I wonder if this will hurt real life performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty concerned though about those high seek times. The WD2000JB gained about 1 ms compared to the WD1200JB. That's not a good thing, and I wonder if this will hurt real life performance.

The effects of the access times are rolled into the high-level DriveMark suites. Perhaps the 2000JB would have done even better if it didn't have such high access times. It nonetheless is the fastest ATA drive around.

We really have to divorce fixation on low-level test results. They're simply diagnostics, not speed indicators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But still, those seek times are ugly...

If a hypothetical graphics chip firm released a chip that featured rather high memory latency yet outperformed ATI and Nvidia offerings substantially in high-level game frame rates, should folks be concerned about the memory timings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, while it's true that the increase in latency is surprising, they seem to have been able to improve on the buffer management or whatever to compensate. So the issues is more of a surprising one rather than a performance problem. Perhaps IBM can get ahead with their usually low latency, if they get their 8MB buffer unit optimised. But as seen with other drives of this generation, no noticeable performance increases are likely to be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps IBM can get ahead with their usually low latency, if they get their 8MB buffer unit optimised. But as seen with other drives of this generation, no noticeable performance increases are likely to be expected.

IBM has a history of good low-level metrics as well as top-rate high-level performance... I wouldn't give up hope just yet... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eugene/Davin,

I applaud another excelent review by you guys, keeping SR on top in terms of professionalism and clarity. And these drives by WD look excellent, the 2000JB definatly deserving of a Safe Buy award (it's a leaderboard winner as well, no?)

My question being: Have you tried more than 1 2000JB, to see if there was an issure with your unit? Some of the results indicate a defect of some sort (mainly the acoustic and temp readings, although the low-level stuff is odd as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody find it interesting that the 60gxp wins the entire SR Web Server drive benchmark? It does tie with the 120gxp a couple of times, but it's interesting what a 1.5 years old drive can do.

I find it interesting that the newer ide drives seem to be aimed at single user work more and more, where as a couple of generations ago drives seemed more rounded in overall performance.

I do beleive IBM's 180gxp with 8mb of cache will probably be a flier - lets hope it can run for at least 8 hours 1 minute ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for another informative review guys.

The article mentions that WD plans to offer FDB motors as an option.

I recently purchased a WD2000JB, and was told that it had FDB motors. How do I verify one way or the other?

Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can feel a screw under the product label over the motor (where a motor screw *should* be), it's a ball-bearing drive. If it's smooth, it's a fluid-bearing drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I didn't know where to write this, but i hope it's OK...

a couple of month ago I saw a review about Cenatek Rocket Drive.

This is a PCI card with 0.5-4GB of RAM on it. I think this is the fastest thing on earth.

http://www.cenatek.com/product_rocketdrive.cfm

I saw this review: http://www.cyberwizardpit.net/reviewscrda.htm

But I would like to here the SR's expert opinion about it.

(of course, with comparisons to Seagate Cheeta and the like...)

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