WD AAKS: 320gb vs. 640gb

[asintu]

I know the 640 is 2 320 platters..so it should be the same thing. However the 640 got much better ratings on newegg than the 320. Why?

 

[Tweakin]

WD rated the 320 as a desktop solution, and as such it has slower access times. I had this drive and it was snappy with great throughput. The 640 has slightly lower access times as it was designed around the enthusiast.

 

[Quiksilver]

because newegg reviews are retarded?

 

[toadeater]

If you listen to Newegg reviews you'll never buy anything again.

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: toadeater
If you listen to Newegg reviews you'll never buy anything again.

hahah so true.

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
WD rated the 320 as a desktop solution, and as such it has slower access times. I had this drive and it was snappy with great throughput. The 640 has slightly lower access times as it was designed around the enthusiast.

so the more plates a drive has the better/faster it is?

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
WD rated the 320 as a desktop solution, and as such it has slower access times. I had this drive and it was snappy with great throughput. The 640 has slightly lower access times as it was designed around the enthusiast.

as i see both the AAKS (320 and 640) are under their high performance drives. So I'm assuming exactly same specs.

 

[Rakewell]

Originally posted by: asintu

Originally posted by: Tweakin
WD rated the 320 as a desktop solution, and as such it has slower access times. I had this drive and it was snappy with great throughput. The 640 has slightly lower access times as it was designed around the enthusiast.

as i see both the AAKS (320 and 640) are under their high performance drives. So I'm assuming exactly same specs.

Well, they are under high performance drives, but the 640 is superior:

Read this from Anandtech:

http://www.anandtech.com/stora...ze=yes&i=3269&p=2&cp=2

"WD sacrificed a small amount of performance on the 320GB drive to meet these goals. This was by design and is not an indication of the performance potential of their new technology. In fact, these same 320GB platters will be used in single-sided form eventually for the 160GB drives. According to statistics, the 160GB drives have quickly replaced the 80GB products to become the new "sweet spot" in the general market. As the capacities increase, the typical user for these products normally expects a balance between performance, thermals, and acoustics. With that in mind, WD tuned the 640GB drive for additional performance at the expense of acoustics.

As far as acoustic testing, this drive posted excellent results, although thermals were higher than we expected considering the Samsung drive is carrying an additional platter and set of heads. Even during heavy seeks, noise levels remained muted, and at idle the drive's acoustical footprint was almost silent. The numbers suggest that the 640GB is very close to the 320GB drive in acoustics. In most ways it is, but we could definitely hear a difference in the seek operations between the two drives. The Samsung F1 offered similar acoustics to the WD SE16 640GB drive but during seeks the drive had a slightly heavier tone that showed up in the recordings."