640 GB Western Digital WD6400AAKS Caviar Blue, SATA 300, 7200 rpm, 16MB Cache, 8.9 ms

[Koolpc]

640 GB Western Digital WD6400AAKS Caviar Blue, SATA 300, 7200 rpm, 16MB Cache, 8.9 ms

http://www.scan.co.uk/product.aspx?ProductId=24541

is this one a dual platter HD? Thanks

[richieuk]

AFAIK yes, all 640GB from WD are 320GB dual-platter.

*awaits staffsmike to correct me*

[ed^chigliak]

I believe all 640gb drives are 2x320Gb platters.

It's the 320Gb drives that are difficult to determine if they have a single platter since 2x160Gb is also a common configuration.

[Koolpc]

Be great for a member of staff to confirm as i want one asap!

[Mithrandir]

You'll find your answer HERE Koolpc (from WD)

[Emirzan]

Didn't we decide the answer is yes in this thread yesterday?

[Koolpc]

Didn't we decide the answer is yes in this thread yesterday?

No definite answer for me.

[Mithrandir]

Western Digital has only one 640gb SATA hard drive on the market. It's already mentioned in the link above that its two platters and model numbered: WD6400AAKS.

[Koolpc]

Ok, cheers.

Many thanks

[staffsMike]

All 640GB drives (current ones anyway) will be 2x320GB afaik. They are a very recent edition to all brands and would be pointless being 4 x 160GB or anything like that as people could make do with 500/750GB drives if it were the case

[Koolpc]

Cheers guys

[NightshadowUK]

What's the big hoo-har about these 320GB platters anyways?

[richieuk]

What's the big hoo-har about these 320GB platters anyways?

320GB on a platter the same size as a 160 for example would mean the head needs to travel half the distance to read the same information as the larger platter. There for, half the distance = half the time, which means that Sata2 connections are now utilising the speeds are capable of becaue the hard-drive is catching up quicker becuase of the eliminated seek-timings.

[NovaSphere]

What about the: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB 32MB Cache SATA2

Which would be better? The WD stated above or the seagate?

[Emirzan]

Personally I'd go for the 640GB WD drive simply because it's bigger and has the highest density platters which, as you've surely read in the discussion above, are rather desirable.

There isn't much to choose between the drives, Western Digital and Seagate are both top manafacturers, both drives come with decent warranties so the makers must have confidence in the product.

Specification wise they are very similar in terms of transfer rates and the like. The cache on the seagate is bigger but this has a very marginal effect on performance since very few of the drives transfers utilise the cache memory. Overall data transfer times and read/write speeds are more important. I guess the seagate can probably be had cheaper but like I said I'd prefer the WD.

[richieuk]

What about the: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB 32MB Cache SATA2

Which would be better? The WD stated above or the seagate?

Simple question, easy answer WD 640