• 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 difference between wd400bb revisions!

K

knutp

Senior member
I Have buildt several computer tha last months with the wd400bb hd's. the last three has the 32clb0 revision. I got another disk last night. That drive had another revision: 00caa0.

I felt difference immideately. First the 00caa0 revision was alot quieter. I hardly heard it at all, I can't hear the seek times when it is in my computer room/lab. But the other drive I can clearly hear when it seeks.

Then I shock came! I tested the drive on a asus tusl2-c, celeron 1,2 ghz, 196 mb ram, tnt2 on win98.
The new drive scored around 31500 (sisoft sandra 811)
While the old one scored around 24000.

I am now testing both drives (both new out of the bag), and with the exact same data on the disk.
More detail information:
wd400bb - 00CAA0
Buffered read: 92mb/s
Sequential read: 46mb/s
Random read: 7mb/s
Buffered write: 85mb/s
Sequential write: 46mb/s
Random write: 11mb/s
Avarage access time: 8ms
Sisoft points: 31 284

wd400bb - 32clb0
Buffered read: 100mb/s
Sequential read: 35mb/s
Random read: 7mb/s
Buffered write: 92mb/s
Sequential write: 33mb/s
Random write: 12mb/s
Avarage access time: 7ms
Sisoft points: 24 345

I know that sisoft sandra isn't the best to test harddrives, but this is a big difference, anyone knows what they have done?
 
They must of figured out a way to get more performance out. Maybe they swicthed to fluid bearings? Dunno, but nice find nevertheless.
 
How can you tell the difference? I have a WD40BB and it is fast and silent, but I bought it last September at Best Buy so it could be an older model.
 
They might have changed the platter configuration. To a single 40gb instead of 20gb version.

Physical differences:
a box with chinese letters (on both versions) but with numbers and letters on the new version.
The box with a logo "mic" with numbers and letters on the new version, no number or letters on the old one.
Also the new one uses 0.80a on 5vdc while the old une ueses 0.77a on 5vdc (or so it says on the drive).

both are "products of malaysia"
And the lba parameters are the same as well.

the pcb seems to be the same, but with some other names (can't see the chips).

Other than those changes, they seem identical. I have tested several times, on several different boots, and I get alot higher result with the new drive.

Edit: If you go to the device manager, you will see the revision (or whatever it is). And then it says wd400bb - 32clb0 (or 00caa0 with the new drive).

The old one is produced 09 september 2001. while the new one is produced 10 december 2001.
 
Something is strange with my setup ...
Just ran Sandra, that analyzed my Western Digital 800BB, and these are the results:

Buffered read: 62mb/s
Sequential read: 26mb/s
Random read: 6mb/s
Buffered write: 37mb/s
Sequential write: 27mb/s
Random write: 8mb/s
Avarage access time: 7ms

Sisoft Points: 19 044

:|


DMA is on, and the drive is running of a Promise ATA100 controller, which reports DMA 5 mode. If installed in the onboard ATA66 controller, it will fall back to PIO mode ... must be some Bios issue, since I can't set DMA mode. Still, these scored are too low.

What do you guys think?
 
The sisoft scores are lower when using win2k or winxp. And as well if you are using a via, sis, ali, nvidia chipset.
 
People, please STOP USING SANDRA for a disk benchmark! It is useless! PERIOD!

Use HD Tach, ATTO, or WB99. Yes, it is very possible that current 400BB's are using a single platter which makes them equivalent to a 1200BB with 40GB. 800BB's of the newest revision could have two 40GB platters and similar performance as well.

I will have to investigate this further when I have the time. 🙂

Cheers!
 
knutp, Check the Advance Size Check in HDTach 2.61, right now its only testing the first 8GB of the hard drive. But yeah, it looks very likely that the your new 400BB has a 40GB platter because its starting transfer rates are roughly the same as the 1200BB.
 
I don't have the ftp for more transfers now.

But another hdtach score: (this time with an msi k7t pro2a) winme, completely new install (just via 4-1 and nvidia drivers loaded).

Read speed: maximum: 49 201.0kps, minimum: 20 291.0kps, avarage: 40 385,1kps
random access time: 13,5ms
read burst speed: 77mbs
cpu utilization: 6,7%

I don't have the older version of the drive for more testing, but it does seem like it is a new version that uses a single 40gb platter!

the old hdtach scores (only the first 8gb, and with asus tusl2-c, celeron 1.2 insted of the msi k7t pro2a +athlon 1 ghz)
New Drive:
Read speed: Maximum: 49 318,0kps , Minimum: 44 166,0kps , Avarage: 47 994,0kps (remember only the first 8gb tested here)
Random access time: 10,6 ms
Read burst speed: 80 mbs
Cpu utilization: 9,4

Old drive:
Read speed: Maximum: 37 670,0kps , Minimum: 22 341,0kps , Avarage: 35 516kps
Random access time: 9,8 ms
Read burst speed: 80 mbs
cpu utilization: 18,3
 
Why doens't WD say anything about this?

Most will buy the new ibm 120gxp 40gb if they want most speed (not reability), and not considering the wd drive.
I was pleasently suprised about the performance. And definately the lack of noice.
 
Yeah, but if they are getting a 40gb drive, they think that the 40gb ibm 120gxp drive is faster than the 40gb wd drive (because they think it's 2X20gb platter drive, instead of 1X40gb platter drive as it seems like it is now).

OMG, just tried to optimise the bios, and installed the pci latency patch.

and got a maximum read performance was over 51 000!
 
Mine says this in device manager:

WDC WD400BB-00AUA1

This feels slower than the 60 gig I got... (who knows, it prolly is)

This was the drive I got back after my original 40gig western digital crapped out.
 
paulson: can you see the top of the drive, and see when it was manufactured?

and perhaps try to do a hdtach or sisoft test?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top