WD1600AAJS vs WD3200AAKS

[ex_soldier1911]

Hello. This is my first post. This seems like a great forum so I think you guys can help me. After reading the review on the WD1600AAJS I was going to order 2 to use as a RAID 0 for my PC. At apx. $60 a piece I will have a very fast 320 Gb disk. For about $40 more I can get 2 WD3200AAKS, run them RAID 0 and double my storage. I realize I should not store 600 Gb of data in a RAID 0 but it is very tempting. How would the performance of these disks compare to each other in RAID 0. I am assuming the WD1600AAJS will be faster because it is a single platter, even though it is an 8mb cache compared to the WD3200AAKS 16mb cache. I am leaning towards the WD1600AAJS but don't want to make a decision until I did a little more research. Let me know what you guys think.

Respectfully
John

 

[sandmanwn]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html?modelx=33&model1=675&model2=367&chart=37

Looking at these charts even the 8mb 160GB JS beats a current 16mb 500GB KS model.

So, performance wise the single platter JS would be the better performer.

Drives are increasingly ever more reliable so maybe it is and maybe it isnt a good idea to store that much in a raid 0. If you had a backup then its probably OK. If you dont then I wouldnt recommend it.

 

[ex_soldier1911]

I believe the WD3200AAKS uses the same platter as the WD1600AAJS, just 2 instead of one. I haven't found any review of the ne WD SE16 models with the AA designation so I have no idea how they compare to last years models.