Record-Making Hard Disk: 750 GB Caviar Posts 95 MB/s

The new Western Digital Caviar WD7500 hangs in there with the WD Raptor, which despite having a 10,000 RPM spindle is no longer faster than the WD7500's 7,200 RPM in transfer rates. The WD7500 makes great strides forward in other technical areas, too.
34 answers Last reply
More about record making hard disk caviar posts
  1. That link doesn't work because it redirects to www.tomshardware.co.uk and that site hasn't been updated with the article yet.
  2. While fast transfer times are definately a good thing, access time is still critical for a large number of applications, though smart caching can help compensate for this such as in the Hitachi drive. It would have been nice to see some real-world apps benchmarked.
  3. Quote:
    The new Western Digital Caviar WD7500 hangs in there with the WD Raptor, which despite having a 10,000 RPM spindle is no longer faster than the WD7500's 7,200 RPM in transfer rates. The WD7500 makes great strides forward in other technical areas, too.


    i am just afraid of WD. it failed on me 3 times in 2 years.
  4. Quote:
    The temperature reading on the top surface of this drive hovered around an acceptable 118° F (48° C) after several hours of constant activity, though it's clear that this drive requires active cooling. In the same situation, four-platter drives like the Barracuda 7200.10 read at nearly 124° F (51° C), and Hitachi's five-platter monster 7K1000 raises the mercury to almost 128° F (53° C).

    Would it have killed you to include a graph of surface temperatures of all of the drives you have benchmarked? Heat is a very important criterion for many people.

    Also, why no mention of operating noise level? Media PCs are on the increase. Not having constant whining and clicking from the hard-drive in the background is a very important feature of such a device.
  5. I hear all kinds of people talking about WD drives failing them. I've had a total of 4 and none have failed me. I've got 2 Raptors running 24/7 without any problems, I had a couple of caviars that I ran for several years at near continuous use and never had a failure. The only drive I've ever had a failure with was Matrox.
  6. Quote:
    The only drive I've ever had a failure with was Matrox

    If you were trying to store data on a video card, no wonder it failed :lol:
    Did you mean Maxtor :?:
  7. LOL, yeah I meant Maxtor, I just woke up when I posted that!
  8. I've only had Seagates fail on me, but that was more than 5 years ago.
  9. A couple mator drives have failed on me. Not one Seagate or WD. They have been rock solid. I have owned a total of about 6 maxtors, 6 WD's, and 4-5 Seagates. Almost half of the Maxtors I have owned failed, so I stay away from Maxtor.

    wes
  10. anecdotal (well i've got x number of x brand drives and y failed ...where x and y values are small) drive failure posts are pointless.

    a. frequently they are made by people w/ 1 or 2 or even upto 6 or so hard drives total... (small sample size)

    b. it is known and understood to most people that it seems that every HD maker has a bad~ish batch now and again... although sometimes a simply bad model is known to hit the market (75GXP anyone?)

    c. all hard drives will fail sooner or later..... my home Domain controller for example just lost a Segate Barracuda (since i knew that this would happen eventually i simply replaced the drive and restored the image) the drive was however 5+ years old so I can't really complain much.


    d. Now if you are a tech/admin w/ 100s of workstations and you tell me you've got an unusually high failure rate that is going to be more compelling than i bought 4x WD from newegg (at the same time and half of them failed after x mos/yrs..... EDIT or for that matter even different times maybe you are just REALLY UNLUCKY :D )


    i would also like more acoustic info on these WDs for a media center application
  11. Let's see, I had...

    3 Maxtors that failed on me
    1 Hitachi that failed within 3 months
    1 WD that developed about 20GB of bad sectors, otherwise it still works

    My most reliable drive ever by a wide margin is my IBM Deskstar 75GXP 60GB hard drive from 2000. I finally retired it about 3 weeks ago.
  12. Let's see, I had...

    3 Maxtors that failed on me
    1 Hitachi that failed within 3 months
    1 WD that developed about 20GB of bad sectors, otherwise it still works

    My most reliable drive ever by a wide margin is my IBM Deskstar 75GXP 60GB hard drive from 2000. I finally retired it about 3 weeks ago.

    When I rebuild my HTPC I will definitely have a RAID 1 setup for all my media files.
  13. see this is EXACTLY what i was saying taken in large view the 75GXP was SOOOO BAD it drove IBM to sell their consumer HD division.

    we had a horrific failure rate w/ these things at work... eventually we just pulled them all and replaced them.


    i lost 2x of these things myself at home... (less than yr)

    friends of mine went thru easily a dozen plus dead ones also.


    but that dosn't mean that some guy(s) somewhere didn't get "lucky" and run 75GXPs for years and all....


    i was soooo mad at the 2nd GXP of mine that failed that i beat it with a hammer ....saying F_ck it to the warranty ... the ceramic platters inside all shattered it was AWESOME...total carnage.
  14. I've only bought WD drives for the last 5 years and Raptor for every boot drive I have built for family and friends.

    I've had computers quit or be retired and the only time I had a HD failure is when the powersupply took the computer with it.

    Actually I usually have to retire them based on capacity rather than them wearing out.

    WD Raptors are rock solid for me.
  15. I don't give much consideration to reliability. Most drives now are generally as reliable as each other.

    That said, I have 4 Seagate 7200.10 320GBs and set them up with a Matrix RAID of RAID10 (60GB Vista / 15GB XP) and RAID5 (781GB storage).

    Chose the seagates because of the quietness and above average performance, plus I liked the idea of PMR.
  16. For those that want more thorough review, go to Storage Review.

    As I recall, they said it was among the quietest drives out there and I believe it is the quietest drive over 500gb. I'm pretty sure the WD5000AAKS/YS drives are the quietest 500GB drives, but maybe someone else has topped them in the past year.

    FWIW, I've owned about 5 or 6 WDs over the past 10 years 2 maxtors 3 quantum SCSIs and one or 2 Micropolis SCSIs. The only failures were the 2 maxtors. Both were the same model and the 2nd was replacement for the first one.

    IME, for home use, drives are more likely to be retired than fail. I've got HDs in boxes that are probably 15 years old (probably have DOS and maybe 3.1 on the 240mb maxtor)
  17. Quote:
    see this is EXACTLY what i was saying taken in large view the 75GXP was SOOOO BAD it drove IBM to sell their consumer HD division.



    Umm...

    I said the 60GB 75GXP was my most reliable hard drive I ever bought. It lasted me since the end of 2000 until last month when I finally decided to retire it.

    It still works.
  18. Back to the topic. For real world applicatoins, the raptor still seems to kill anything else (other than scsi, which most of us can't even realize its true potential in a workstation environment). I guess if you were moving larger files around, this would be a great drive. Like other's said, I'd like to see real world performance comparisons between it and the raptor. Something tells me the raptor would do a good job of keeping the lead.

    For people like myself who would use a large drive in a raid set up (probably raid 5 or 6), I'm not too concerned with max speed. I would be saving video, audio, my own created files (audio and video) as well as images of drives and things. My point is that unless I am serving (I know thats what the article is focused on), the speed isn't of huge importance so long as I don't get slow down. Watching a movie or listening to an audio file will not slow down the raid array to the extent that I will notice. Otherwise, the WD 750 gig seems pretty good.

    I guess what I would like to know. Realistically, if i bought the 750 gig WD, would my overall performance be better than that of the raptor or at least on par? Again, something tells me I'd see longer load times for programs (including games of course).

    Btw, I own both western digital raptors (old, can't compare to the new ones) and segate as well as probably a few other brands, plus some old (15 years or so) scsi drives. Interestingly, none have failed. Scsi, IDE and sata, all run fine still. I guess I'm one lucky SOB.
  19. Seeing that this discussion has turned to the reliability of Hard drives, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

    I've always stuck with Maxtor, Seagate, and Western Digital drives. IBM has been horrid for me. I've had ~8 120gb Drives fail on me (not retired like some do, but unrecoverable failures).

    I've had many Maxtor drives over the years and have had only one problem with an old 40gb Maxtor drive that was known for poor reliability anyway. Otherwise I've had no problems at all.

    I've been using Seagate drives for a long time and have been quite content with their performance (quiet, fairly fast, as of so far they've been reliable, don't run too hot, etc).

    Western Digital drives have worked almost perfectly for me, no problems. Still have a few machines with 500mb - 800mb WD drives and other than being slow compared to new drives they run flawlessly.

    Have had good luck with Fujitsu drives in the past, not sure how their quality is now.

    Personally I've just had rotten luck with IBM drives, Most of the ones I've had have failed completely. Tried various recovery methods, none were successful. Had most of the data backed up somewhere else so it wasn't really a "total" disaster when the drives failed.

    I guess thats just my $0.02,
    HTH
  20. as far as realworld performance too... ...im currently running winxp64 on a 36GB GD raptor as an external usb 2.0 hdd (had to modify the image to make it installable over usb)... even though the transfer rates are limited to 30MB/s for both reads and writes from beginning to end, the OS is still very responsive, (most files arent even 30MB in size) and doesnt need defragging really as a result... and when they are much over 30MB, theres a noticable pause in loading... ...but for everything else, applications included, its still a wicked fast hdd, even with the bandwidth limitation... ...and that again is due to the 8ms access times

    in fact, even with only 30MB/s peak transfer rates, games and applications still loaded about just as fast as they do on my 74GB ADFD, which offers transfer rates up to 3 times that (which more explains the lack of improvement where raid 0 is concerned)... however, the pauses while actually playing in game were more lengthy than i cared for (during loading sequences and such), so i just have them on the 74GB ADFD again

    but this definetly goes to show that transfer rates really arent a deal breaker when it comes to actual application performance... access times are. ssds should be even that much more so then too, as far as an improvement in performance.
  21. I think we were mainly just posting with our experience and recommendations. If you combine all the posts on here, and how many people had which drive fail, not just look at one post, and forget the numbers and look at another post, you might get a decent picture on what drive you would want to purchase. I might have missed it, but i don't think anyone in here was stating that one company only produces crappy hard drives, if that were the case they would not be in business.

    wes
  22. I've only ever had 2 hard drives fail on me, both were Maxtors. I've never had a problem with WD or Seagate.
  23. The best deal at the moment for price/capacity definitely is the 500GB drives going for $100, but I cannot seem to find a place that sells these in bulk for less.

    The WD 750GB really is fast for a single 7200RPM drive. Would be nice to see how it performs in a RAID0 shootout and put this up against two Raptors.
  24. I've had 8 WD HDDs, the oldest of which had been running 24x7 for 6 years and none of them have failed, as well as 1 Maxtor that has been around for about 5 years and also running 24x7(retired it 1 week ago) with no failures. I am currently having some minor issues with one of my WD drives that appear to be related to my PSU going belly-up. and my most recent drive is a WD 750GB drive, and I gotta say, its transfer rates are insane, they are better than my raptors. in theory my 74GB raptor should be able to outrun it, but my OS is on the drive so it cant beat my 750GB
  25. Quote:
    anecdotal (well i've got x number of x brand drives and y failed ...where x and y values are small) drive failure posts are pointless.

    a. frequently they are made by people w/ 1 or 2 or even upto 6 or so hard drives total... (small sample size)

    b. it is known and understood to most people that it seems that every HD maker has a bad~ish batch now and again... although sometimes a simply bad model is known to hit the market (75GXP anyone?)

    ...........

    d. Now if you are a tech/admin w/ 100s of workstations and you tell me you've got an unusually high failure rate that is going to be more compelling than i bought 4x WD from newegg (at the same time and half of them failed after x mos/yrs..... EDIT or for that matter even different times maybe you are just REALLY UNLUCKY :D )


    I can tell you that WD sends out crap for replacement drives. Up until recently I was a system refurbisher and dealt with a lot of replacement drives. Every brand had failures under warranty. WD replaced their drives with refurbs, and the refurbs failed. I think WD refurbs are cleaned-up defective units.

    If you don't think your drive will fail, WD has some good ones. But if by chance your drive does fail, count on WD to deliver you a dud for a replacement.

    Seagate made a bunch of bad low-profile drives in the late 90's, followed by a bunch of bad drives based on Conner Peripheral technology in the early 2000's. Basically, most of their low-cost drives between 1997 and 2002 were suspect. But I never got their low-cost drives for my own machines, so I only had to deal with them on the business side.
  26. NOTE: PMR FOR THE 750GB VERSION ONLY. (According to the WD website). The review wrongly suggested that the other size variants offered the same performance, to just look for the AAKS models. WRONG
  27. I thought all HD manufacturers used refurbs for exchanges? I know fujitsu and maxtor do, but I have not yet RMA'd a Seagate or WD.

    Is it true that Seagate does not honor their 5 year warranty on OEM drives? I can't remember where I read that, but that immediately convinces me to never buy Seagate again and switch to manufacturers who will honor their warranties on OEM drives. What geek in their right mind would pay retail for a hard drive? It's outrageous (unless you want a Maxtor on sale lol).
  28. Good note that the WDC site says only the 750G drive uses PMR!

    I checked out some more drive specs on the site. Comparing the specified weight and electrical specs of the 500GB AAKS drive I suspect the 500G variety must have 4 platters, not 3 like reported by THG... (would also match with not having PMR).

    Could anyone confirm or deny this?

    Sorry if it looks like I'm more interested in performance of the 16SE AAKS family of drives than in X failures of brand Y drives... :sleep:
  29. I've owned about forty Western Digital drives and none have failed me. I even have a Western Digital drive (850MB) in a 486SX/25 that my father purchased back in 1991 that still works with 0 bad sectors. I used the 486 up until 2001 (the computer is still operational and I do use it to play some really old DOS games) when I bought the first of many computers to come.
  30. nicolasb said:
    Would it have killed you to include a graph of surface temperatures of all of the drives you have benchmarked? Heat is a very important criterion for many people.

    Since a Seagate 750 went down on me, I am now paranoid about heat (as I'm convinced it overheated due to not being actively cooled). In other words, (reads his own words,) I agree.
    Quote:
    "Also, why no mention of operating noise level?"

    That's also very useful. (However, you could always put the PC in another room to the one you use - perhaps?)
  31. I am glad to see that I am not the only one to have beaten a "Dethstar" with a hammer :-) It sure made me feel better.

    I agree that the individual experiences posted here are statistically meaningless but sometimes it is good to vent. As for myself, overt the last 20 years I have had a Maxtor go as well as the "Dethstars" but I also once had a 35 GB Raptor fail. Any of them can fail eventually.
    I intend to get one of these to compliment my two Raptor 150's which run in RAID 0 and my two Raptors running in SATA, one for client data and one for music and pictures. I intend to use the SE16 WD7500AAKS for data and driveimage back ups or my Raptor Raid-0 C drive. I also have an external drive that I back up data to once a week and for really irraplaceable stuff I burn a monthly DVD(s). Anyway, before I finalize the set up I will have a good chance to compare the 7500AAKS to the Raided Raptors.
    (Off to New Egg to order ) :wahoo:
  32. I also have a 75GXP that's still up and running :). I can tell it's on it's last legs though.. it clicks sometimes... but then again, I've had it for about 5 years.

    I did have a drive die on me.. and I think it was a maxtor. I can't remember for sure.. but I do remember that when I tapped it w/a screwdriver, it started to sound like a race car revving up lol. Was awesome. Not good, but awesome!
  33. Just wanted to toss my 2 cents in. I'm looking at the SE16 WD5000AAKS and comparing it to the Seagate ST3500630AS both just a bit over $100. While the seek/write/latency times are a tad slower on the specs for the WD, it looks nice...while the ST has perpendicular recording. Can't seem to decide! I'd go for a 750GB but I'm low on the flow at the mo'!..hah

    Thanks for all the posts here I found after reading the article focusing on the 750GB hdd from WD. Just to toss in, since others did. Here's my lowdown on my exp. on hard drives. My old Seagate SCSI 500MB drive has never ever failed, burped or botched a file even when compressed to well over 2GB (old-school stuff). I've have tons of hard drives over the years and I have 2 "paper weights", both Western Digital Caviars (31200 & 32100). One spins up and makes aweful noise, the other is just dead. A bunch of other WDs (IDE, SATA/SATA2) work great. Seagate I've also got a ton of, I had one choke on me and sent it back and quickly got a new factory sealed retail boxed one in return (a 160GB IDE). Maxtor, well I learned early on they are HORRIBLE drives. I have 2 sitting here, one an old 20GB that gets REALLY HOT and my old first UMDA-100 drive I bought, a 5400 "MAXTOR 4 K060H3" that is on it's way to the bone yard (bad sectors all over it). Was able to recover most of the needed data (it was on an old P4) and out the window it'll fly after I'm done. All my friends personally do NOT use Maxtors at all, except some idiot who I havn't talked to in a couple years (jerk). A good friend also used Maxtors some years ago working on his first RAID array, and he said it was a disaster and returned them all for WD's. I know the focus topic is on the newer WD's but it can be fun to let off some steam and safely say MAXTORS SUCK!!! Sorry, but I had to let it out... Oh I might as well add this while I'm in a bashing mood, I've seen some of the "generic CompUSA" (blechhh!) HDDs, and guess what they really were! Yup, rebadged Maxtors!!! Most likely "refurrrded" from the company and sold to CompUSELESS...
    ok as someone previous said-(Off to New Egg to order) :wahoo:
  34. In my PC i have right not around 10 HDDs and 2 more i cant conect because of not enought ports but none of them go over 32-35°C with some 800rpm fans on them.
    Soon geting new system drive MAX3147RC - 147GB 15k rpm SAS enterprise drive for 257$ (my temptation was too big as Raptor is only 20-30$ cheaper) and Adaptec SAS-4805 controler for 400$ (instead of 1000$ in shop was too much tempting as well) and few more 500G drives for data but not sure about whitch ones yet (cant decide betwen cheap samsung or more expensive but better seagate)

    - any idea whitch to get ? Dont want unnecesary spent too much on them because of controler and system drive price.

    So far my system was running 24/7 last 3 years without single hdd failure with 4-10 hdds in it with decent cooling, but before i didnt used to cooling them and lost 4 out of 7 drives i had during their 1st 12 months.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hard Drives Western Digital Caviar Storage