Sign in to follow this  
Davin

Western Digital Caviar WD1200JB

Recommended Posts

We hoped to publish tonight but it'll probably be delayed until tomorrow, sorry. Raw figures are available in the database now, however.

Regards,

Eugene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like its performance is almost identical to the 1000JB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It performs like the WD1000JB under IPEAK, but if you look at the WB disk transfer rates, the WD800JB is definetly a 40GB/platter drive. Two things surprise me when I look at the numbers :

1) I didn't think that capacity within the same drive family (the WD800JB is a two platters version of the three platters WD1200JB) would affect performances so much (if you consider IPEAK as the most reliable benchmark).

2) I don't know how, but Western Digital managed to significantly reduce the noise and heat generated by the drive compared to its other 7200rpm drives. Judging by the numbers reported in the database, the WD800JB is comparable to an average 5400rpm instead of a typical modern 7200rpm. Maybe that's a bit why its access times are comparatively lower than those of most other current 7200rpm drives.

Eugene, are you sure the drive you reviewed wasn't running under a kind of "quiet operation" mode? The reported noise seems quite low and the access times quite high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coug,

It's one of the first things that jumped out at me. All tools confirm that AAM is disabled on the sample though.

Regards,

Eugene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can answer comment number 2.

The 800JB is a 2 platter drive therefore the mechanism should be much more simplier to the 1200JB which will lead to less noise and less heat produced.

However, what cannot be explained is the increase of access time. I believe, given exactly the same drive, but one with 3 platter, one with 2, the 2 platter drive should have a lower access time due to the 'lighter' heads. WD must have somehow slowed down the drives access time so that it cannot perform faster than the 1200JB.

Whats irriatating is that it is even slower than the 1000BB-SE/JB. Which has a 33GB platter, and significantly lower transfer rate.

And I have just purchased a 800JB today, thinking it would mimic a 1200JB's performance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whats irriatating is that it is even slower than the 1000BB-SE/JB.  Which has a 33GB platter, and significantly lower transfer rate.

???

According to Winbench, its transfer rates are equal to those of the WD1200JB at 49.3MBps begin / 29.2MBps end. Are you sure you did look at the trnsfer rates of the WD800AB instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To see WD's comparison chart of the 1200, 1000,and 800 go to: http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic....p?p=34691#34691

only differences posted on WD's site that I could find are:

1200 and 800 Buffer to Disk rate = 602 ms

1000 Buffer to Disk rate = 525ms

1200 Seek Mode 0 = 39dBA, Mode 3 = 35dBA

1000 and 800 Seek Mode 0 = 39dBA, Mode 3 = 37dBA

Of course the benchmark tests yield more real world information but I wonder what small (?) variations in results amount to in terms of the actual performance of the drive that I would notice (average artist noticer). The WD800JB is now in the mail on the way to my door...hoping for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta be patient man, these guys have lives beyond this website. Most of the conclusions can be drawn from the data that is already available in the Database section.

Kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This statement is factually incorrect:

Increased buffer size when it comes to server performance is often of dubious value. Any slight increase offered by cache hits is often offset by the increased latency of searching a larger buffer.

Any reasonable cache would use a hash sized for the buffer, which is doesn't scale in a linear fashion; it's decidedly sublinear; it can also almost always a constant time if you prevent collisions well enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems a bit noisy this drive, was thinking about putting it in a Molex Silentdrive thinghy.

hence...

the temperature readouts seem a bit funny, as the power dissipation specs are really quite high, did they have these drives on some sort of active cooling?

a 120 Gb IBM GXP quotes power dissipation at 6.2 Kw though the temperatures on the review come in a lot higher than the WDC's even though this has a power dissipation (IDLE of 7.25Kw)

looks like if I want a quiet (ened) hard drive I'll have to go for an IBM + Silent Drive

I'm not sure about the performance difference between that and a seagate - I heard those were really silent!

though I have seen an aluminium hard drive enclosure with sound dampenign materials - I don't don't know if they're available in the uk though :o(

btw its not just ridiculous attention to detail the silentdrive specs state that they need a drive under 6.7kw power dissipation to function correctly.

any thoughts on these things?

alternatively I was going to butcher the silent drives and put Koolance water coolers in there as well

G

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
Sign in to follow this