WD Caviar 640GB vs Samsung F1 1TB

[Goi]

Hi,

I'm about to get a new rig and I'm considering either getting 3xWD 640GB or 2x Samsung F1 1TB. The former is quite a bit cheaper, but I like the fact that I get larger continuous space with the F1(and ~100+GB more).

From my understanding both these drives have the largest platter density right now(320GB vs 333GB/platter) and hence are 2 of the fastest models out there. I'm wondering if one is noticably/significantly faster than the other?

Also, are all Samsung F1 1TBs guaranteed to be 3x333GB platters? Or are there some that are 4x250GB platters?

TIA.

 

[n7]

Samsung's 1 TB F1s are slighter faster.

You can see that in our HDD benchmark thread here, as well as in a few reviews, especially techreport's one IIRC.

 

[Goi]

Thanks. Will check them out. Just wondering if it's worth spending the extra, but I guess I'll talk myself into it

 

[zod96]

Yes they are slightly faster, but the WD 640 uses less power and is quieter and from what I've read the samsunf F1 have alot of bad drives right now.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

All 1Tb drives are 3x333....the speed difference between the WD and F1 in real world usage is such yo probably won't ever tell a difference. Both are great drives, so go with what works best for you.

 

[Goi]

Thanks.

zod, where did you read about the bad F1 drives?

 

[zod96]

Over at silentpc review in their forums.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: zod96
Over at silentpc review in their forums.

I think it turns out that most (not all) of the hard drive problems were not problems with the drives themselves, but the Samsung disk utility software wasn't compatible with the F1 (being that it was a new drive), and thus was showing errors when there really weren't any.

I believe that Samsung now states that their old software is not compatible with the F1, and they are releasing (have already released?) a new compatible version since then.

 

[Goi]

OK, I guess that clears the Samsung then.

 

[Ravynmagi]

I have both drives. My WD 640GB seems to be just slightly faster than my Samsung F1 1TB.

Western Digital WD6400AAKS
http://www.dragonbytes.org/ima...C_WD6400AAKS-00A7B.png
Transfer Rate
Minimum: 55.5 MB/s
Maximum: 118.0 MB/s
Average: 92.5 MB/s

Access Time: 12.2 ms
Burst Rate: 143.3 MB/s
CPU Usage 2.7%

Samsung HD103UJ
http://www.dragonbytes.org/ima...rk_SAMSUNG_HD103UJ.png
Transfer Rate
Minimum: 53.0 MB/s
Maximum 116.7 MB/s
Average: 91.1 MB/s

Access Time: 13.8 ms
Burst Rate: 118.0 MB/s
CPU Usage: 2.5%


I also had some F1 750GB drives (250GB platter drives, so were slower). And it seems these F1 drives in general seem a tad on the flaky side to me. All the F1 drives would behave oddly if all 6 SATA ports on my motherboard were in use, which my Western Digital and Seagate drives didn't have any issues with. But only in AHCI mode. And usually only when doing a full format or a chkdsk /r. Quick formats and chkdsk /f would work fine.

All the F1 drives had master cylinder errors, but that is because the diagnostic HUTIL software is crap and Samsung has done a terrible job getting it updated within a reasonable time frame (dang drives have been out for half a year I think).

I'm very happy with my WD 640GB drives. I'm okay with my Samsung F1 1TB drive, since it's issues are rare and predictable (I just need to unplug one other SATA drive or disable AHCI mode before formatting or doing a full chkdsk). But the WD drive seems to be the better drive.

 

[Pollock]

Originally posted by: Ravynmagi
I have both drives. My WD 640GB seems to be just slightly faster than my Samsung F1 1TB.

I also had some F1 750GB drives (250GB platter drives, so were slower). And it seems these F1 drives in general seem a tad on the flaky side to me. All the F1 drives would behave oddly if all 6 SATA ports on my motherboard were in use, which my Western Digital and Seagate drives didn't have any issues with. But only in AHCI mode. And usually only when doing a full format or a chkdsk /r. Quick formats and chkdsk /f would work fine.

So you'd recommend the WD6400AAKS over the 750GB F1? Every review I've seen with the two of them (or the 1TB F1) has the two trading shots, and the pricing is also quite similar. I can't seem to make a decision.

 

[Goi]

Thanks. I will be purchasing my parts tomorrow. I think I will go with the Samsung F1 1TB.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Pollock

Originally posted by: Ravynmagi
I have both drives. My WD 640GB seems to be just slightly faster than my Samsung F1 1TB.

I also had some F1 750GB drives (250GB platter drives, so were slower). And it seems these F1 drives in general seem a tad on the flaky side to me. All the F1 drives would behave oddly if all 6 SATA ports on my motherboard were in use, which my Western Digital and Seagate drives didn't have any issues with. But only in AHCI mode. And usually only when doing a full format or a chkdsk /r. Quick formats and chkdsk /f would work fine.

So you'd recommend the WD6400AAKS over the 750GB F1? Every review I've seen with the two of them (or the 1TB F1) has the two trading shots, and the pricing is also quite similar. I can't seem to make a decision.

Yes...the 750Gig Samsung uses 3x250Gig plattes, while the 1Tb uses 333x3 platters. The WD 640 uses 2x320.

So the lower platter density on the 750Gig makes it a slower drive (although, not by much)