WD 80gb 8mb cache equal in performace to 120 gb

[dmak]

As most of you know, tomorrow, newegg will offer the new 80 gb hard drive with 8mb cache. I hear mix opinions about this verison of the hard drive. Storagereview.com claims that the performace will be not up to par because of the size of each plate. Can someone confirm this or comment on this.

Will the performace of this hard drive, 80gb be the same or better then the 120gb 8mb cach 7200rpm ata 100 hard drive?

I am wantting to get a new hard drive but worry that the performace is lacking therefore teh the value is not worth it and that it might not be as good and failures like the ibm gxp75 hard drives.

-thank you
dennis

 

[Poncherelli]

whats the price on this compared to a regular 80 gig?

 

[dmak]

more information:

recently, i read some announcement made by westerndigital that the 80gig hard drive with the 8 mb cache will come in 27 gb platters instead of 40 gig platers in teh 120 gig hard drive. It looks logical to claim that the performance will not be up to par.

THe reading at the edge for the plater will be faster then the inter circle like it would on a cd in a cdrom drive.
Can this be correct?

need input.

Current price on newegg for this drive is 130 plus 7 dollars shipping.
The 120gig hard drive is like 189.99 plus 7 dollars shipping

let me know
-dmak

 

[Aboroth]

I think agreeing with whatever Storage Review says is a safe bet.

 

[QTPie]

westerndigital that the 80gig hard drive with the 8 mb cache will come in 27 gb platters instead of 40 gig platers in teh 120 gig hard drive. It looks logical to claim that the performance will not be up to par.

I agree

 

[dmak]

storagereview, has not inputed any opinion about this news yet. He quoted that the drive will have 27 gig per plate, which is contrayer to westerndigital website which states its 2 plates which means 40 gig per plate.

I would like to know more about any improve ment between big plates or smaller one.

Storagereview has not commented yet.

dmak

 

[SteelCityFan]

How large are the platters on the 100GB drive?

I am very interested in this because I had planned on getting the 80GB version since the time I heard about it. I don't fill up the 20GB drive I have now, so I am buying for speed without paying for max capacity. Has anyone reviewed this drive yet and comapred it to drives like the 120GXP and other WD 8MB cache drives?

Why would WD not just use 2 40GB platters to keep the speed up to par?

 

[SteelCityFan]

I look forward to a review so I can determine whether or not the $50+ price difference is worth it for the assumed better speed of the 40GB platter versions.

 

[dmak]

news flash:
i'm reading up on the storage review site.
Good news is, that the 800jb will be using 2 40 gig plates which will have good performance stats. Why 40 gig plates? The main reason is cost. I think what many individual said, the new standard western digital is attempting to do is 40 gig plate to make it cheaper. Orginially they were usign the old standard of 27 gig plate but b/c of the popularity of the 120 gig drive, its been cheaper to make 40 gig plates. I general, i believe, its so much cheaper to make 40 gig plates then 27 gig plates.

Also, the 100jb is in 33 gb per plates.
It looks like taht someone has recieve one of these hard drives and have given some specs from test results.
although the average access time is far higher then maxtor d740 or igm gxp drives. the read and write speed has a higher average. I think, personal, that you can only tell the difference by the read and write time. Although the access time is far less on a maxtor, you do not read a file these day taht are quite small, but rather now later in size from movies, cad, or photo psd files, you can see the increase in speed.

I am planning to get this drive tomorrow when it comes available. I too do not use up the space but rather getting it over getting scsi.

note: Although scsi is teh fast mechanical drives, its not cost effective and soon we all be getting into serial ata which will be cheaper and faster.

way to go, western digital.

dmak

 

[SteelCityFan]

I just went over to WD's website.

According to them..

The 120GB drive has 3 platters (40GB platters)
The 100GB drive has 3 platters (33GB platters?)
The 80GB drive has 2 platters (40GB platters)

Drive Configuration

I think storage review is wrong on this one. At least according to WD's website.

 

[Fun Guy]

<< The 100GB drive has 3 platters (33GB platters?) >>



120GB = 3 platters (20 GB each side) 6 sides used
100GB = 3 platters (20 GB each side) 5 sides used

 

[SteelCityFan]

Hmm.. didn't know that Fun Guy.

Not knowing too much about production costs, but wouldn't the 100GB drive cost about the same to make as the 120GB drive? Why bother with the 100GB drive. The price difference is so small anyway.

 

[nortexoid]

funguy's right...

the 100gb model uses three 40gb platters, two of those using both sides, the other using one side...
most all hdds are made like this when the total size isn't evenly divisible by the platter size.

the platter density is 20gb per side.

 

[AkumaX]

sweet, i was thinkin i got screwed w/ my 100gb je, glad its 40 per platter than 33

 

[Sukhoi]

You need to look at how many heads the drives have too. The 800JB has four heads with two platters, meaning it uses both sides of two 40 GB platters. The 1000JB has six heads with three platters, meaning it uses both sides of three 33 GB platters. The 1200JB has six heads with three platters, meaning it uses both sides of three 40 GB platters. So the performance of the 800JB should actually be fairly close to that of the 1200JB, and theoretically higher than the 1000JB.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

"You need to look at how many heads the drives have too. The 800JB has four heads with two platters, meaning it uses both sides of two 40 GB platters. The 1000JB has six heads with three platters, meaning it uses both sides of three 33 GB platters. The 1200JB has six heads with three platters, meaning it uses both sides of three 40 GB platters. So the performance of the 800JB should actually be fairly close to that of the 1200JB, and theoretically higher than the 1000JB. "

Correct, but the difference would be *very* small... maybe 5-7% (I think)

 

[SteelCityFan]

You must have gone way back to dig up this thread...

StorageReview has their review of the 80 and 120GB SE drives..