640GB Western Digital Caviar Black WD6401AALS HD Tune Result

[Oversized Rooster]

I got ahold of 2 new WD6401AALS HDs. This is the 640GB version of Western Digital's Caviar Black series.

Both are manufactured on September 13, 2008 and they seem to post identical results. The benchmarks were done with HD Tune 2.55.

I've thrown in benchmarks for the 500GB Western Digital Caviar Blue (WD5000AAKS) and also the 300GB Western Digital VelociRaptor (WD3000GLFS).

In two words...the WD6401 is the fastest 7200rpm hard drive I've ever played with - it delivers VelociRaptor-like transfer speeds at 33% of the cost. AWESOME HDs!

WD6401AALS HD 01:


WD6401AALS HD 02:


WD3000GLFS:


WD5000AAKS:


Transferring large files from one WD6401 to the other WD6401 gets an average transfer rate of 95MB/s according to Vista's dialogs. If I transfer small files the average is anywhere between 50 and 65MB/s.

If I transfer files between my VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS and one of the WD6401 drives, then my average is about 105MB/s.

[willy]

5 years warranty too ...

[kleptodathief]

wow that WD 640gb is FAST! is the 1TB version just as fast??? cuz i got both the samsung and seagate 1TB and they r slower then that WD



rooster: how come ur cpu usage: is so HI??? it shud b less then 5% no?

[Oversized Rooster]

During the testing I was doing stuff.

I've re-run the benchmarks now and CPU usage is normal at around 5%. I am running them in AHCI.

Now both my WD6401 drives score 11.9ms for access time!

The WD7501 and WD1001 are also just as fast, but only the WD6401 will give you such low access times.

[B0000rt]

Whats improved over the 6400AAKS?

Just more cache? 32MB vs 16MB?

[Oversized Rooster]

Whats improved over the 6400AAKS?

Just more cache? 32MB vs 16MB?

32MB cache versus 16MB.

Also dual onboard processors. Believe it or not, this makes a difference. For instance, you can read and write from the HD without slowing down each process.

You can switch between different videos while running several torrents, and there won't be a pause between the media change.

And of course the other major difference is the 5 year warranty, versus 3.

The WD6401 also has WD's "StableTrac" technology where the motor shaft is secured at both ends which reduces vibration.

The WD6401 can operate from 0 degrees Celsius up to 60. The WD6400 operates from 5 degrees to 60.

In terms of power consumption, the WD6401 draws more power when reading or writing compared to the WD6400, however draws less when idle.

[B0000rt]

32MB cache versus 16MB.

Also dual onboard processors. Believe it or not, this makes a difference. For instance, you can read and write from the HD without slowing down each process.

You can switch between different videos while running several torrents, and there won't be a pause between the media change.

And of course the other major difference is the 5 year warranty, versus 3.

The WD6401 also has WD's "StableTrac" technology where the motor shaft is secured at both ends which reduces vibration.

The WD6401 can operate from 0 degrees Celsius up to 60. The WD6400 operates from 5 degrees to 60.

In terms of power consumption, the WD6401 draws more power when reading or writing compared to the WD6400, however draws less when idle.

Nice.. Sounds great I already have a pair of 6600AAKS in RAID0, I'm going to wait until WD releases HDDs with 500GB platters 10000AAMS!

[torseller07]

When you say onboard dual processor, I assume you mean the dual processor on the hard drive, right? I am quite surprised about the results, as I always thought the dual processor on hard drive would benefit server application only.

I don't know. I have been considering getting a WD duo proc black 640GB but was more inclined to get a V-raptor 300GB. So maybe this new result would change my perspective.

Would like to see more dual proc results!

[Sgt_Strider]

I got ahold of 2 new WD6401AALS HDs. This is the 640GB version of Western Digital's Caviar Black series.

Both are manufactured on September 13, 2008 and they seem to post identical results. The benchmarks were done with HD Tune 2.55.

I've thrown in benchmarks for the 500GB Western Digital Caviar Blue (WD5000AAKS) and also the 300GB Western Digital VelociRaptor (WD3000GLFS).

In two words...the WD6401 is the fastest 7200rpm hard drive I've ever played with - it delivers VelociRaptor-like transfer speeds at 33% of the cost. AWESOME HDs!

WD6401AALS HD 01:


WD6401AALS HD 02:


WD3000GLFS:


WD5000AAKS:


Transferring large files from one WD6401 to the other WD6401 gets an average transfer rate of 95MB/s according to Vista's dialogs. If I transfer small files the average is anywhere between 50 and 65MB/s.

If I transfer files between my VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS and one of the WD6401 drives, then my average is about 105MB/s.

You got anymore details on your file transfers? I've seen some results of the new WD 640GB HDs, but msot of them are just benchmarks from HD Tune. As great as those numbers are, I'm more interested in real-world results.

[bst]

Great insight, how will this compare with the 640GB 7200.11?

[Calmuser]

hmm how would this compare with the older raptors.. such as the 150gb version?

[Bomberman07]

Hi there,

just got a 1TB caviar black and I though it would be nice to revive this post! :P

Just wondering if my speeds are ok, cause my caviar black seems slower than OP's one... He can do 94MB/s and I can do 81MB/s

here are the specs from HD tune

[mingyang]

My WD6401AALS

is very similar to your result bomberman, apparently i deleted my benchmark pic. ill post when i get a chance.

OP probably beat me by 5% because of the CPU/RAM spec as im running E6300/2GB

[Bomberman07]

I'm running E8400/4GB ram 1033MHZ on vista x64

[Soulsaber]

Seems like western digital is a good brand... this is my result with only 16MB cache!