Latest Hardware Prices & Quotes..!!

Krow

Crowman
Velociraptors are a waste of money. Better get an SSD than a velociraptor. Although WD Black is awesome.
 

nads

Broken In
Velociraptors are a waste of money. Better get an SSD than a velociraptor. Although WD Black is awesome.

agree with u krow velociraptors r a waste now since SSDs r in the market n in due time when SSD rates will drop n when they r available mainstream like HDDs.... we will be wondering what we were doing with HDDs in olden days...... :p i think in 4-5 years time SSDs will be the norm.....
 

sjoardar

Go Ahead, Make My Day!
@thunder.02dragon: How about 2X500GB WD Black? I am not really upto 2X1TB, unless the former makes for a really poor Rs/GB ratio.
 

thunder.02dragon

Journeyman
@sjoardar
Sir 500GB Black is not available, I m getting 1TB black only (thats to after loads of requests :p) Still I might give a try(I see 0% chances though). For now please consider 1TB Blacks..

Thx man... if u could show me some place where i can find a comparision between these 2 drives will luv that.... i tried but i couldnt get anything.... my budget is 5-6Ks nothing more i know WD black r awesome but i think they cost 4Ks each.... :sad:

@thunder.02dragon what do u think which drives will be better in RAID 0 config..... pls enlighten me man.... :?


@nads
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2404&page=2
Here 1TB Blacks in RAID0 Double the performance sir..
You might not find exact info, here just you have to judge...check the WD RAID0 SATA2 Green/Blue review and consider this same on Black which is said to be 20-40% faster

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1077/10/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hitachi-western-digital-terabyte,2017-5.html
 

topgear

Super Moderator
Staff member
WD 's are better than the Seagate..was selling Seagate before but now only WD as they perform much better and they are Quiter..
WD Blacks are great HDD's get them if you want raw Performance
2x 1TB WD Black will blow you away...
Velociraptors are costlier though

For choice between HDD it depends much on personal choice and previous experiences :p

Yup, I also think that 2x WD Black in Raid 0 may be a little faster in 7200 RPM drive category But I think even 2x WD Blue series or seagate 2x 7200.12 series drives also gives good performance. They may give by far 10MB less bandwidth in Raid 0 but they also costs less. When you use 2x HDds in RAID0 there is not much use of the dual proc of WD Black series. If you are using WD black as a single drive then it's the fastest of all 7200RPM drives I think.

In Raid0 mode drives RPM speed takes a major role other than dual proc.

thx @topgear i have never had a seagate HDD fail on me till today n have been using seagates all my life recently only i have been using WD blue which i have in my Dell Studio 15 n samsung NC10.... i have an old seaget 40GB HDD drive which i use as a portable HDD for the last 5 years n it is still working gr8 n has never given me any trouble....

I researched on the 16 n 32MB Caches also couldnt find much of a difference..... but one thing i concludede is that if u r going with a higher size HDD (like above1TB) then the cache is useful (i even came across 64MB Cache tooo) n when there is heavy duty writing on the HDD (read server or database Applications) as far as read is concern it dosent make much of a diffrence even between 8 n 16MB cache..... n i inquired seagate dosent have 32MB cache drives in 500GB range so will go with 16MB cache drives its costing me 2500 each.... WD is costlier dunno y....

Feeling lazy to install all the stuff to the new RAID 0 setup.... have a lot of files from FS9 which will take 3-4days to install so will procure them when m in the mood... till then will be harrassing u guys with my questions...:razz:
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------



Thx man... if u could show me some place where i can find a comparision between these 2 drives will luv that.... i tried but i couldnt get anything.... my budget is 5-6Ks nothing more i know WD black r awesome but i think they cost 4Ks each.... :sad:

@thunder.02dragon what do u think which drives will be better in RAID 0 config..... pls enlighten me man.... :?

32MB cache drives gives better performance in write test though by a small margin as compared with 16MB but the price you are going to pay for the increased cache size is not too much. So there is not any point to go for low cache sized models.

Seagate has no 500GB 32MB cache drives in 7200.12 series. Only 1TB discs has 32MB cache. So at the end of the you has two choices :p
1. 2x Seagate 1TB 32MB cache 7200.12 series drives for Raid 0 ( Rs. 8K total )
2. 2X WD Blue 500GB 32MB cache drives in Raid 0 ( Rs. 5.4K )

BTW, 2x WD Black 1TB will cost around Rs. 13K :p
 

nads

Broken In
guys got a gud deal m getting WD 500GB @32MB Cache for 2500/- each.... for 50 bucks less i was getting seagate 7200.12 500Gb@16MB Cache..... so decided to go with WD... will let u know how the performance is once i RAID it n load win7 Ultimate on it......will be using my old seagate 7200.9 250GB 4MB Cache as an external drive ordered a TAG casing@600/- will get it by today evening n will keep u guys updated..... anywayz i wish to thank everyone who have help me in making this decision..... thx to all.....CIAO
 

Krow

Crowman
I've heard that the Altec Lansing MX5021 used to be very cheap in Chennai compared to the rest of the nation. But overall I think Bangalore may be cheaper.
 

tkin

Back to school!!
I would also recommend seagate anyday over WD ( HDds are something of personal choice too ) :p

I know if a HDD just carshed on someone the impression would be very bad as you can loose a lot of critical data ( my 80GB seagate Hdd once craches ).

BTW, the prob with 7200.11 were fixed with new firmwire update ( as upgraded mine I know that ) and the 7200.12 series drives are known to be that firmwire bug free :p
My 7200.11 got fixed too, no crash after update, 4500hrs passed after that.
 

topgear

Super Moderator
Staff member
guys got a gud deal m getting WD 500GB @32MB Cache for 2500/- each.... for 50 bucks less i was getting seagate 7200.12 500Gb@16MB Cache..... so decided to go with WD... will let u know how the performance is once i RAID it n load win7 Ultimate on it......will be using my old seagate 7200.9 250GB 4MB Cache as an external drive ordered a TAG casing@600/- will get it by today evening n will keep u guys updated..... anywayz i wish to thank everyone who have help me in making this decision..... thx to all.....CIAO

Great deal :p Keep us updated.

My 7200.11 got fixed too, no crash after update, 4500hrs passed after that.

Glad to know that :p
 

nads

Broken In
hiii guys
what should i say..... got the drives but i should be happy or sad i dunno.... i wasnt home when the delivery fellow came to give the drives at my place so my lil bro collected it n opened the plastic in which the HDD comes... i come home n find that i have received HD Green HDD with 32MB Cache :-x:-x:-x

i cant return it since the plastic bags r torn.... WD Blue r not available in the market at this time only green n blacks... anyways damage was already done n i went ahead n setup my RAID 0 config which went pretty smooth installed win7 ultimate n all my relevant stuff..... n ran HDD Tune http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/987/hddtunebenchmarkpic.jpg now u guys tell me how r the transfer rates i even downloaded the passmark performance software n i have got a disk mark of 1206 http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/3931/passmarkscore.jpg i have got WD 500GB Model nos WD5000AADS couldnt find any reviews on the net.... but i dont seee much of a performance boost when win7 is booting it boots as fast as my optimized win xp.... m i missing somthing here or this is normal......

Write speeds have increases compared to my old HDD seagate 9200.9 series 250GB n reading is also quick..... but not as quick as i had expected to be honest.....will be loading games n then i will see the real world performance of these HDD..... if u guys need any other info let me know will be glad to help....


NB:- check this link also http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_lookup.php?cpu=WDC+WD5000AADS

note that the seagate ST3500418AS is the same drive which i was planning 500GB@16MB cache n its nos one...... y didnt i come across this before :-x:-x.... u can see the score for a single WD5000AADS which i m having n it lags a cool 236 points behind :-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x...... but in RAID0 i m getting score of 1206 which is a little more than 2 WD5000AADS combine will the same be true with the seagates????? or m i just trying to find more value from my blunder :?
 

desiibond

Bond, Desi Bond!
@nads, average transfer rate of 130+MBps is pretty good and really fast.

if possible, I will try to run the same tests on my home PC today and let you know.
 

nads

Broken In
thx desibond ur results will really help to find out how other drives r performing..... by the way i researched some more on the net n hav come to know that the WD Blue 500GB with 16MB Cache model number is WD5000AAKS n Green drive model number is WD5000AADS found out according to passmark ratings that WD blue is slower than WD green a bit not much.... but the seagate ST3500418TS has such a huge advantage any idea y?????? at the same price range.....


look 2 positions below to see WD5000AAKS
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_lookup.php?cpu=WDC+WD5000AADS



Guys check out this link http://www.hardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1284410&page=16

i think i should be happy with my RAID0 perfomance of WD green drives:-o:-o:-o:-o
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom