Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Caviar black 640gb 64 mb cache vs velociraptor?

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 9, 2010 2:34:40 PM

hey guys, i'm thinking of buying either a WD Caviar Black 640GB 64mb cache or a velociraptor.

i'll be using it for movies, music, word processing mostly.

i mainly want something that is rock solid reliable and has decent performance.

what do you guys think i should go with? if the store doesnt have 64mb of cache, should i go with 32mb instead? would that make a big difference?

the VR costs $180 for 150gb while the Cav black is around $110 and it's 640GB. the size doesn't make a difference for me, but that $70 is a big jump. would i see a big jump in performance?

how does the VR do in windows boot up for instance compared to the black?

is there a good reason why the VR's are so much more expensive?

would i be better off buying the black now, and buying an SSD later in the year when they become more reliable and less expensive? i've heard about problems where the SSD's get slower the more they're used?

thanks guys
April 9, 2010 2:57:26 PM

i've been trying to find some benchmarks to make a good comparison of the two and i can't find anything?

i'd really like to know how much of a difference the 32mb of cache makes compared to the 64mb cache. how does the cache help?

it looks like it's a $20 price difference.

i'm looking for something that will allow apps to open much faster.
m
0
l
April 9, 2010 5:11:12 PM

i have a 5.9score on too blacks with the 1tb seperates in raid 0 and 32cach and there slow ssd drives i bought smoke everything and anything out of the water night and day difference get one ssd for your main system atlease all you need is 30gb
m
0
l
Related resources
April 10, 2010 7:25:14 AM

what about a black to VR comparison?

i dont have the cash to buy an SSD
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
April 10, 2010 8:19:14 AM

Is this going to be the ONLY drive in your system (i.e., it will hold not just movies and music, but also Windows and your applications)?

If so, go with the Velociraptor. It has much faster access times and that means your computer will boot up and start applications faster.

If not (i.e., Windows and your programs are already installed on one drive and you'll be putting music and videos on this second drive) then the Black drive will give you a lot more storage for the same money. You don't need a particularly fast drive to play videos, listen to music, or load and save Word docs.
m
0
l
April 10, 2010 3:57:40 PM

yeah, right now i'm looking at putting the black into the PC as my only drive.

the VR is a lot of money. $50 more and much less storage.

does anyone have benchmarks to make a comparison?
m
0
l
April 11, 2010 3:29:45 PM

alright, thanks.

i'm looking, but i don't see the comparison to the cav black's with 64mb of cache?
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
April 11, 2010 8:36:34 PM

According to the spec sheets on the WD web site, their Black 640GB drive (WD6402AAEX) has a transfer rate of about 113MB/sec, while the WD2001FASS in the Tom's review has 128MB/sec. So the 640GB should perform perhaps 10% slower in terms of transfer rates than it, and the access times will likely be similar since its the same-generation product.

You can see the spec sheets here: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/287...
m
0
l
April 13, 2010 8:51:12 AM

sminlal said:
According to the spec sheets on the WD web site, their Black 640GB drive (WD6402AAEX) has a transfer rate of about 113MB/sec, while the WD2001FASS in the Tom's review has 128MB/sec. So the 640GB should perform perhaps 10% slower in terms of transfer rates than it, and the access times will likely be similar since its the same-generation product.

You can see the spec sheets here: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/287...


hey bro, thanks.

do you have a link to the numbers between the VR 150 and the 640 caviar black 64mb cache?

one other thing i don't understand is how the 2TB can be quicker than the 640 even though they're both blacks and they both have 64mb of cache?

thanks bro
m
0
l
April 13, 2010 12:56:28 PM

Cache has very little to do with it, in most cases 32 or 16 mb is more that enough. The high cache is more of a marketing ploy.

The reason the 2TB is much faster is that it has a higher data density. It probably has 2 500GB platters vs. the 2x320GB in the 640. Higher density means less distance to get your data, and since they spin/move head at same rate, higher density equals faster.
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
April 13, 2010 1:58:20 PM

ComputerNerdGuy said:
do you have a link to the numbers between the VR 150 and the 640 caviar black 64mb cache?
It's all on the Western Digital web site.
m
0
l
April 20, 2010 5:49:58 AM

alright, thanks.

there doesn't seem to be much reason to go for the VR drive?

over here it's $180 for a 150GB VR vs $100 for a 640GB 64mb cache caviar black.

they both have similar performance, too and a 5yr warranty.
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
April 20, 2010 7:38:18 AM

As far as I know the VR drives are basically the same as the standard drives but with some firmware tweaks to improve performance in streaming video applications. In general purpose use I have a hard time imagining that you'd see any difference unless you were doing some pretty heavy video stuff (for example: watching multiple movies at the same time you're recording multiple movies).
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 8:58:59 AM

oh ok, i dont think the VR drive is worth it to be honest.

when would the extra 32mb of cache become a factor in the black btw?
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
April 30, 2010 10:09:37 AM

The cache by itself won't make much of a difference, but I seem to recall that the 1TB drives with the larger cache have denser platters and therefore have a higher transfer rate. Check the spec sheets on the Western Digital web site to be sure.
m
0
l
May 1, 2010 3:48:09 AM

OK so i dont know what yall are smoking, but the caviar black 640 gb's are 75$ newegg. If YOU wait till they are on sale they get down to 65 dollars every few weeks or so. On top of all that i got 2 on black friday for 50 dollars each. I have bought 6 of these drives for various computers. The best thing for you to do would be to get 2 640 gb caviar blacks in a raid 0 (130$ when on sale). I have this in one of my comps and it gets 160 reads and 140mbs writes, correct me if i am wrong but i believe teh vr is about that.
m
0
l
May 1, 2010 3:51:01 AM

well, i do believe i made a poopy. Yall are talking about the 640gb sata III's. anyway. I would go with the sata II's in raid for cheapers.
m
0
l
January 2, 2012 12:27:34 AM

andrew149 said:
i have a 5.9score on too blacks with the 1tb seperates in raid 0 and 32cach and there slow ssd drives i bought smoke everything and anything out of the water night and day difference get one ssd for your main system atlease all you need is 30gb


I too was battling always having a 5.9 rating for the hardisks. I started out with a single 750 gig caviar black and got 5.9, then I paired it with a twin in RAID 0 same specs and still 5.9 rating. however new drivers are bringing out there advantages. I bought a bulldozer 6 core mounted to a gigabyte MOBO with tons of ram and still 5.9 then I loaded new drivers from Gigabyte and it bumper to a 6.1 finally. they do seem to run better. But all the little delays that I experienced in the past are gone.
m
0
l
!