Performance differences on WDC blacks

skywalk

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2009
66
0
18,630
Hi folks.

Pls correct me if i'm wrong: for the WD caviar blacks....

640gig = 2x320 platters
1tb = 3x333 platters
2gb = 4x500 platters

thus: for speed, its logical to say that 2tb > 1tb > 640gig

what i'm wondering is, what kind of performance improvement will there be, switching between the above drives? have any benchmarks been done?

i'm buying a new comp soon and I'm trying to decide between these 3 drives. thanks

 

spinny

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2006
274
0
18,810
Performance improvement in what area?

If we are talking purely hard drive performance, the difference between these densities will shave time off of read/writes, but we are talking seconds, not minutes, depending on the size.

In other words, nothing to lose sleep over. Buy what you can afford. If you are seriously concerned about speed, just grab a smaller Seagate that uses 500 gig platters.
 

skywalk

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2009
66
0
18,630
thanks Spinny.

I basically do 3 things on my comp:
- lightroom/photoshop
- games
- email/surf

right now on my WD greens, the load times as i'm scrolling through pics is slow. takes 2-3 secs to load each pic. If I could shave them off, it would be wonderful!!!
 
What's the typical file size for these pictures? Are they large RAW files from a DSLR camera?

The WD Greens spin down after about 8 seconds of inactivity, so if you're pausing several seconds between loading pictures you might be seeing the spin-up delay.

RAW files can require a fair bit of CPU crunching to display, so might be possible that the delay isn't related to your hard drive.
 

skywalk

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2009
66
0
18,630
ahhhh bottleneck might be my CPU. should have thought of that. I always thought its HD access time.

all RAW files btw. and the worst wait occurs when I zoom in/out, or skip ahead more than 5 pics.

i'm getting a WD V-raptor 150 gig for OS, and black 640 or 1tb for music/storage.

when SSD drops, i'll put games on the V-raptor and OS on SSD. hope my new i7 will be fast enough to handle RAW files at MY speed! :)
 

amnotanoobie

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2006
1,493
0
19,360


Don't count out the Green's, they are slow drives and really ideal for mass storage. With a Black or a Seagate you'd probably shave half the time or more when loading images.

The price to capacity ratio of a Green is hard to beat, but it isn't a performance drive.
 

skywalk

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2009
66
0
18,630
thank you for all the informative replies.

last question: I read a review that the 1TB is hotter and louder than the 640. Is this bad enough to get annoying or problematic?

cheers
 
Zooming delays sound like a CPU bottleneck, as zooming doesn't normally require reloading the image from disk. You can run task manager (Ctrl+Shift+Esc) and click the "Peformance Tab" to see if the CPU is maxed out.

If you don't have enough RAM, it's also possible that your system is paging. That translates to a disk bottleneck, although it's better solved by getting more RAM to eliminate the paging altogether rather than upgrading the hard drive to make the paging faster.

...and for all I know it could still the hard drive.
 

I do not know. I have a 640 GB Black and two 1 TB Greens in my gaming and multimedia machine. Drive temp in an Antec 900 case are generally 27 - 28 C. And all three drives are quiet.
 
For large RAW files, make sure you have enough RAM. As stated above, if you don't have enough RAM and you get a faster hard drive, it'll help a bit, but getting enough RAM would help a ton. As for the 1TB black? I have one, and it seems fine to me. I haven't noticed any trouble at all (though it is louder than the velociraptors, which are practically dead silent).
 

skywalk

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2009
66
0
18,630



I have 4 gig of ram in my winxp 32bit system, so just over 3 gigs is usable right now. So I kinda doubt it's the ram. I think it must be the HD and the CPU. Can't wait to upgrade!