• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Big Blue gets a hundred lashings with a wet noodle...

M

MisterDuck

Member
Storagereview.com (which, incidentally, is back online and here to stay - thank god) reviewed the IBM 120GXP hard drive - which they found to be a decent competitor to the WD1200BB hard drive. Both drives seemed to perform similarly in their tests, which isn't saying much since the WD1200BB is about fifty bucks cheaper than the IBM drive.

Furthermore, the WD1200JB still literally pounded the crap out of both of those drives, and it's STILL cheaper than the 120GXP (about 230-245 on pricewatch, 250 for the IBM). The WD1000JB also bested it, fairly easily.

All I can say is thank god for WD and their 8 meg cache. I finnally got a new mother board that supported ATA100 (and ATA133, even though that's a big friggin' waste), and I'm pretty blown away by how fast my WD1200JB is. I work with a lot of very, very large sound files on my computer, and this drive is almost twice as fast as my old SCSI setup was opening a large file...


It'd be sweet if WD would release a 120gb 10,000 RPM hard drive with an 8 meg cache - but that'd probably be asking for too much. =) Oh well. I'm happy, for now...
 


<< the WD1200JB still literally pounded the crap out of both of those drives >>


Do you freaking work at Tom's Hardware Guide??? :| :| :|
 
An 8MB cache would be useless with files considerably larger than that, as you'd still have to stream data from the hard drive, which is where all the difference in drives is. (I assume by "very very large" you mean very very large and not just kind of big.) The cache controller also needs to be able to tell that you're GOING to be reading that file next in order to actually cache it and make any difference whatsoever. If you load one file, manipulate it, load filters, whatever, then write that file back, the cache is not going to have the next sound file waiting.
 
Seeing as how storagereview has without a doubt the best testing methodology for hard drives (and in my opinion, the best reviews I've seen anywhere on the web, including this site's), I don't find anything dramatic about stating that the WD1200JB beat the crap out of IBM's latest offering - as well as most of the 10,000 RPM SCSI hard drives currently on the market (in everything but server performance), with the exception of a few select drives that are going to set you back a minimum of $400.00 plus controller.

The benches don't lie - the JB consistently performed FAR above the IBM drive, and given that it's cheaper than the IBM drive, I think my statement is fairly on track.


An 8MB cache would be useless with files considerably larger than that

Thank you for stating the obvious.

Now that you're done with that, go read the review. WD1200JB rocks your dome, and takes a fat dump all over Big Blue from a performance and price perspective.
 
MisterDuck you use any instant message program? I am wondering a few things about your WD1200JB HD with 8 mb of cache! Thanks.
 
"Furthermore, the WD1200JB still literally pounded the crap out of both of those drives."

It did? Are hard drives getting in fights now? Is there going to be a UFC style tournament with HD's fighting to the death soon? 😛 😉
rolleye.gif
 
Coming to your favorite flash site soon! IBM vs. the heavyweight WDC JB! 🙂

LOL, imagine stick 'toons of hard drives fighting like robots in robot wars! 🙂

Cheers!
 


<< MisterDuck you use any instant message program? I am wondering a few things about your WD1200JB HD with 8 mb of cache! Thanks. >>



Do you like to get in bed with everyone that owns a 1200JB? 😉



<< The WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache is faster than the IBM 120 gxp series! No ifs or buts about it. >>



Faster in some apps, yes, but not in all applications. Until the 1200JB outperforms the 120GXP in all aspects of testing, it is not "pounding the crap" out of the 120GXP. SR clearly shows the 120GXP to have an advantage in some performance tests.
 
John are you never going to get over that the WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache beats your IBM 120 gxp series HD? Seems like you are still mad and jealous of the WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache 🙂
 
imtim83, if you took the time to read what I posted then you might have a clue. It is obvious that is not the case.
 
The 1200BB runs a dead heat with the 120GXP, and I can tell you there is no preceptible difference between the 1200BB and 1200JB, so I'll logically assume there is none between the 1200JB and 120GXP either. IDE drives no matter what the specs all perform so closely together that you will almost never notice the difference unless you are comparing drives a couple generations apart.

" I work with a lot of very, very large sound files on my computer, and this drive is almost twice as fast as my old SCSI setup was opening a large file..."

That's because the 1200JB/BB have a very respectable near 50MB/s sustained for the outside quarter of the drive which is well above all but current generation SCSI drives. A larger cache has almost zero affect when working with large files as you will almost never have a cache hit when streaming data off the platters.
 


<<

<< MisterDuck you use any instant message program? I am wondering a few things about your WD1200JB HD with 8 mb of cache! Thanks. >>



Do you like to get in bed with everyone that owns a 1200JB? 😉



<< The WD1200JB with 8 mb of cache is faster than the IBM 120 gxp series! No ifs or buts about it. >>



Faster in some apps, yes, but not in all applications. Until the 1200JB outperforms the 120GXP in all aspects of testing, it is not "pounding the crap" out of the 120GXP. SR clearly shows the 120GXP to have an advantage in some performance tests. >>


John is correct! I own two of the 120GXP's and #1, didn't pay the price "MisterDuck" seems to quote, and it is one quiet, fast drive! I have nothing against the WD "JB" special series and suppose they are fine drives, but, I've had a LOT of WD failures in the past and this includes 3 in the past 3 months in my own systems and ones I had built therefore, I will continue to buy the drives which have been most problem free for me which are IBM & Maxtor!

I don't know what "MisterDuck" is clucking after or whom he works for, but, he seems like a "quack" to me..........😉
 
Well we all remember the IBM 75 and 60 gxp series with all the failures. Who knows whats going to happen with the IBM 120 gxp series in a few months to 1 year. I am expecting to see people talking about theie IBM 120 gxp series failing but hey thats fine with me sense most people are not ever buying IBM HDs anymore.
 
Also i do not want the IBM 120 gxp series to fail at all. But i have no idea how stable they are sense they have not been out for a while. I mean i really was going to get a IBM 15 or 30 gig 75 gxp series a while back but i never did because i found out and knew that the IBM 75 gxp series had all those problems with so many people. So i was not going to take that risk. Maybe i would of if IBM HDs were sold like at bestbuy or compusa so i could bring it back easily instead of waiting weeks or months. But IBM HDs are not sold locally. 🙁
 
If your criteria for buying things is that they have to have been out for a long time in order to see if anybody has problems, then you'll never have the fastest performance. You may as well go ahead and buy something older now.
 
Well at least i wont be the one with the IBM HD problems in the future when they fail and you have to RMA them. Then when you have to wait 1 week to 1 months + then you will not be happy.
 
intim, let me put this in plain English for you.

[*]What you fail to realize is that all HDD's regardless of brand can, and do, fail.
 
I know that and accept that fact. But IBM HDs have problems because its not just a normal failure rates its a very high one. It has been happening and it has not improved. i know people who had 4 HDs in a row by IBM fail on them. The first one they brought and the HD that was sent to them from IBM failed and another one did and another one after that. Then they just changed HD brands after that. This is a ongoing thing too with IBM HDs failing over and over again. John do you think the IBM 75 gxp series and the IBM 60 gxp series HDs had no problems at all with failure rate?
 
I think what imtim83 is trying to say is that he doesn't quite trust IBM after the problems with some of their more recent hard drives. Yes, they all do fail, but it seems the 75's had been failing a whole lot more than say, Maxtors. It's not really in the best interests to judge a company by its past though. If that was the case we'd all be convinced that Cyrix was good price/performance and after K5.. none of us would want an AMD processor again. 😉

It's always a risk to try brand new hardware. But if IBM knows anything, they're most definately going to be fixing the problems of older hard drives before they really get a widespread reputation.

And as for the IBM vs. WD debate.. I have no idea.. I use a Maxtor. 😀
 
http://www.compaq.com/newsroom/pr/1999/0,1494,wp~85_2!ob~14230_1_1,00.html

http://www.driveservice.com/bestwrst.htm (note the last updated time on this one)

http://www.wdc.com/support/archive/recall/ac31600-quality.asp (I had one of these)

I had trouble finding any links to failure of Maxtor, Fujitsu, or Seagate drives of the same scope as the above.

The point: all manufacturers have drives that fail, often an entire line has problems like the 75GXP supposedly does. So far I don't think the lawsuit against IBM has been won, and IBM did claim that the failure rate was within the normal range for any brand. IBM's issue with the 75GXP is just the hard drive failure du jour; a year from now somebody else will have a line that appears to have high failure rates.

Oh yeah, I use 2 Maxtor's in my system now, and two in other systems. WD's had too many failures for me, and at the times I was buying drives, they didn't have anything that performed well enough for me to chance the failures. I also have an IBM drive in one system, but it doesn't see much use. I've had to replace 3 or 4 Western Digitals over the course of 6 years building my own machines. I've had one Maxtor fail on me when it was about a year old (though it still ran well enough to save data from it; just bad sectors were the problem). I have a failed Western Digital sitting on my desk right now, which was working the last time I used it, I took it out and had it on a shelf for a few months, and now it doesn't pass WD's diagnostic program. It's an old drive though, 2 years out of warranty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top