WD Scorpio 320GB Results are In!

Just recieved my WD Scorpio 320GB drive and all I can say is i'm impressed with the Hd Tune results.



The results are very promising nearly as fast as some 7K200 results + 120GB more space.

My drive doesn't seem to have the clicking that others have noted.

Test was done under XP 32bit

 

Nice results, better than my current HDD, I really should begin shopping for a new one, although I do not think I need this much capacity.

 

Thanks for posting the benchmark. I include the benchmark of my Hitachi 7200 RPM, 200GB along with your original WD 5400 RPM, 320GB for comparison. The Average Transfer Rate is very similar, WD Burst Rate is higher but Hitachi Access Time is 11.5 % faster.



Win XP 32bit
Sony SZ381P
Core 2 Duo 2.33GHz
3GB RAM
Hitachi 7200 RPM, 200GB.

 

Access time is about the only thing 7200rpm drives have left if you ask me. I got the 250gb model when it came out, the jump to 320gb happened pretty fast I wouldnt have minded an extra 70gb of space at all.

 

In a defraged drive I believe the random access is imperceptible. So I give it to the 320GB @5400!!

 

The difference in access time is 1.7ms. Very small even when you look at the percentages. I previously had a 7K200 in my notebook and this one is not slower in an way general usage ect. I"m going to be reccomending this drive to everyone who's looking for a drive in this price range.

 

I wanted 7k200 as my HDD, but now it seems that the WD is better option. Costs the same. Do you think, that the performance is realy the same? I mean a lot of system usage, photoshop etc.

 

Also notice the 8 degree celsius difference - helps keep the notebook cooler. This does look promising. Anybody have both and can run PCMark or some other benchmark tool that would be affected by hard drive speed?

N

 

and now with Samsung having announced a true mobile 500GB 5400rpm HDD, there isn't going to be much in the way of 7200RPM options to compare, unless they can boost their platters to similar sizing....

 

Just give me a 500GB SSD and we're set

 

yes, Iam waiting for it, but i think they will be avaiable from March?

 

But that Samsung 500GB appears to have 3 platters squeezed into the standard height (why hasn't this been done previously?) in which case the performance, based on data density, will be much the same as the 320GB HDDs. The Hitachi 500GB also has 3 platters but in a thicker housing.

John

 

Trying to decide between the 7200.2 200gb and this drive, the only issue for me is that oddly according to the product specs this drive uses more power than the 7200.2.

http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=377&language=en#jump11
http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_momentus_7200_2.pdf

 

I wouldn't expect the 320GB WD to take more power than the 250GB version (since it is just an increase in data density on the platters), which you can compare with the 7200.2 at Tom's Hardware for maximum power and idle power. Both those charts suggest that the WD will take a little less power.

John

 

That's kinda how I figured it would be, but the product specs from each manu. gave the seagate a small edge surprisingly. Do you know if dell uses a WD 320gb or the Samsung 320GB when you upgrade via their site?

 

samsung 320Gb sata 2.5"
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2862/hdtunebenchmarksamsunghbv3.png

 

I'll be damned...

Probably the fastest transfer rate I've ever seen in a 5400 drive, and the Access Time looks pretty good too!

Although I'm not sure why the burst is so low as I've seen 5400 drives break 100MB/s on bursts before. But still, nice hd right there.

 

2 x 200gb 7200rpm RAID 0 View attachment 18287

 

Thats awesome! I would love to do this, but I would be excessively paranoid about data loss in a RAID 0 configuration.

 

That and raid 0 always paints a pretty picture in benchmarks but in real life it doesn't walk the walk to keep up with its benchmark talk

 

The WD Scorpio 320 is better than the Samsung one,providing those benchmarks are acurate.
Access time for the WD is 17.5 as oposed to the Samsung`s 18ms.