Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

500GB drives - WD5000AAKS or WD5001AALS or WD5002AALX

Last response: in Storage
Share
March 2, 2011 9:42:52 PM

Hi all,

I managed to find a blue WD5000AAKS 500GB single platter drive from WD. I'm wondering if I made the right choice. Do you think I would be better off going to the WD Black drives either the WD5001AALS or WD5002AALX models? I understand the new models are all 2 or more platters.

Note that I can't easily get the Samsung F3 in my area, so WD is my choice.

I have an older PC but will probably see some gains from my 2500JS model, but would like to invest in something speedy for the future. Will be going SSD for an OS drive once the prices come down a bit more.
March 3, 2011 12:23:17 AM

IMHO, Western Digital rules! I've seen far too many failures on Seagate... And the other HD players are simply a joke.....

I've got a number of WD AAKS 500 Gb drives. Including the RAID pair running my mission critical 1500 CD juke box in RAID..... No issues 2 years running 24x7......


BUT, recently I've been switching to the WD Black series for my Critical data needs. Hey, WD backs Blues (good as they are) for three (3) years and Blacks for five (5) years. Hey, I assume they know what they are talking about...... I'm moving to WD Black, for a few dollars more.


m
0
l
March 3, 2011 1:00:28 AM

jb6684 said:
IMHO, Western Digital rules! I've seen far too many failures on Seagate... And the other HD players are simply a joke.....

I've got a number of WD AAKS 500 Gb drives. Including the RAID pair running my mission critical 1500 CD juke box in RAID..... No issues 2 years running 24x7......


BUT, recently I've been switching to the WD Black series for my Critical data needs. Hey, WD backs Blues (good as they are) for three (3) years and Blacks for five (5) years. Hey, I assume they know what they are talking about...... I'm moving to WD Black, for a few dollars more.


Hey thanks for your reply. I hear you on the black drives, but all the talk about "single platter" and better performance has me leaning towards the Blue series. Seems impossible to find a single platter 500gb in the Black series. So I'm not sure what would be the best choice. Other factors come into play I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of performance if the Black series is quieter and uses signifigantly less power.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 3, 2011 1:35:07 AM

Single platter : simpler and more reliable.

Multiple platter : Faster and more capacity.


I've heard there are 320 Gb platters and 500 Gb platters. Look at the reviews on the 640 Gb drives, faster than 320 Gb drives (they use two 320 Gb platters in parallel). And the review on 1Gb vs 500Gb again, two 500Gb platters in parallel against a single 500Gb platter.

And the 1.5 Tb and 2 Tb drives re-inforce this logic with three parallel plates and four parallel plates for even MORE performance.... above the single platter 500 Gb drives...

The Blacks are also suppose to have a better drive mounting mechanism. Hey, is WD INcrease the warranty from 3 years for the Blue's to 5 years for the Blacks there must be SOMETHING to it.....


m
0
l
March 3, 2011 9:52:55 AM

jb6684 said:
Single platter : simpler and more reliable.

Multiple platter : Faster and more capacity.


.


See I've heard the exact opposite.....single platter is faster and runs cooler with less moving parts. Can anyone verify this? Would the new 6gb/s Black drives be the best choice from the WD lineup?
m
0
l
March 3, 2011 2:39:07 PM

I have a 100+ WD IDE and SATA drives installed. The Blue KS maybe a better price. However I have seen a couple fail. The Black LS I have never had an issue with.
m
0
l
March 3, 2011 9:40:12 PM

So I have it down to the WD5000AAKS or the WD5002AALX.

WD5002AALX is 32mb cache and 6gb/s 7200 double platter 5yr warranty

WD5000AAKS is 16mb cache and 3gb/s 7200 single platter 3yr warranty

My PC is old ATA100 so do you think I'd even notice the difference between the two?
m
0
l
March 4, 2011 8:23:57 AM

It is totally false that more platters=better performance. It takes considerably longer to read and write data to multiple platters vs a single platter. Hitachi hard drives are a prime example of multi platter hard drives being slower when compared to single platter drives from other manufacturers.
m
0
l
March 4, 2011 11:59:39 AM

Three of the main things that control HD speed (for sequential reads that is...)

You spin a disk, read it with a pick up head the closer the bits are together, the quicker they pass by the heads to read... or in more detail

So, the faster you spin the quick you can Read, 10k, 7200, 5400...... RPM

Platter capacity is so important to mechanical hard drives because it plays a large role in defining overall drive performance. What really matters is the platter's areal density—how many bits it squeezes into a given unit area. The higher the areal density, the more data the drive head can access over a given physical distance. Platters that have the same total capacity don't necessarily share the same areal density, though. For example, Seagate's Barracuda XT 2TB features 500GB platters that have an areal density of 347 Gb/in², while Western Digital's 500GB platters squeeze 400 gigabits into every square inch. Advantage, WD.

So, 320 Gb WD are slower than 500 Gb WD as they use a more dense platter...


Third factor, number of platters.... IF you read the platters in at the same time, you can read more data on each rotation of the platter...

TRUE, more platters, more complexity more power & more noise....

m
0
l
March 12, 2011 10:46:31 AM

the WD6402AAEX is now on sale which has 6gb/s and a 64mb cache.

I assume it has 2 320GB platters? Would this be a better choice than the Black with 32mb cache if its the same price? Or would the WD5002AALX be the one.

Also, are they noisy drives compared to the blue?
m
0
l
March 12, 2011 11:41:30 AM

The WD 640Gb drive is one of the fastest they have ever made. Mainly due to the 2 x 320gb platters...

I've got 5 WD Blue 500Gb drives. And 3 WD Black 1Tb drives. Seem about the same level of noise to me. Both are quiet enough....

I've seen a couple reviews where they test against the WD 1TB (2 x 500gb platters...) On a straight sequential read, the 1Tb is quicker. But Interestingly, the WD 640Gb is faster on a couple tests. This is due to the fact that the higher areal density on the 500Gb platters takes JUST a bit more time to seek to a new position. (for example, you can scroll you mouse across the screen and land on a one inch square target very easily, so, you can go Really fast. Now try the same scroll of the mouse and land on a single character, you'll have to slow your scrolling down to hit that smaller target....)

Either way you'll have a good drive.....
m
0
l
March 12, 2011 2:18:47 PM

jb6684 said:
The WD 640Gb drive is one of the fastest they have ever made. Mainly due to the 2 x 320gb platters...

I've got 5 WD Blue 500Gb drives. And 3 WD Black 1Tb drives. Seem about the same level of noise to me. Both are quiet enough....

I've seen a couple reviews where they test against the WD 1TB (2 x 500gb platters...) On a straight sequential read, the 1Tb is quicker. But Interestingly, the WD 640Gb is faster on a couple tests. This is due to the fact that the higher areal density on the 500Gb platters takes JUST a bit more time to seek to a new position. (for example, you can scroll you mouse across the screen and land on a one inch square target very easily, so, you can go Really fast. Now try the same scroll of the mouse and land on a single character, you'll have to slow your scrolling down to hit that smaller target....)

Either way you'll have a good drive.....


Thanks for the informative post. So either the 500 or 640 should be similar performance?
m
0
l
March 13, 2011 12:59:25 PM

I've used that site for CPU benchmarks. When a CPU has two times the score, you'll start to notice a Slight difference between the 2 CPUs....

Pretty much the same holds true for hard disk drives.... 50, even 100+ point differences between drives your simply Not going to notice without a stop watch...

Example: I've got WD 500 Gb Blue drives vs my WD 300 Gb Raptor 10K drive you do notice that the Raptor is faster, but it won't change your world....

Even bumping up to the lower end SSD drives is not wildly faster....

It's only when you get to the hi-end SSD drives that you double or triple the score of a regular hard drive and your system is Clearly faster....


Again either the WD 500 or 640 will be fine choices...
m
0
l
!