Western Digital WD2000JB 200 gig worlds fastest drive??

Discussion in 'Industry News' started by HardwareHeaven, Oct 9, 2002.

  1. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    After a few weeks of delays, it is finally available: the WD2000JB from Western Digital, a high performance drive and impressive storage monster. It offers a whopping 200 GB, although, on the surface, it looks exactly like its preceding models, with no trace of sex appeal or emotion.

    The improvements are to be found under its aluminum and cast iron casing: Western Digital has managed to give each platter 60 GB. Hard drives with 120 GB and 180 GB (with two and three platters, respectively) were to be expected, but the top model with 200 GB serves to show that more than 60 GB per platter should be possible - because this hard drive uses only three platters.

    Check out the full review over at tomshardware <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomshardware.com/newsletter/vol2/38/wd2000.html">http://www.tomshardware.com/newsletter/vol2/38/wd2000.html</a>
     
  2. craig5320

    craig5320 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    9,682
    Likes Received:
    226
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Santa you've got 2months! get going! NOW.
     
  3. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    its an awesome drive, but personally I find it interesting to see that the dreaded IBM deathstars beat the WDs in access times.....

    also worth noting that the 120 gig version seems to beat it on some of the bench tests at the bottom of that article.
     
  4. Vampyromaniac

    Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis

    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Messages:
    5,974
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    why?

    I read THG reviews sometimes, and I've noticed in their benchmark comparisons, sometimes the hardware they use to compare the reviewed item to . . . is not current. I have no idea why they do that, but it bugs me.

    In this example why on Earth did they use an IBM 60GXP as comparison, instead of a 120GXP? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the top stuff of each manufacturer?

    Anyway, I have an 80gig-120GXP and a WD800BB, and here's how mine compare (these were taken a couple weeks ago) with a just couple of THG's WD2000JB numbers:

    HDD.....................120GXP (80GB).......WD800BB......THG's WD2000JB

    Burst Transfer...............90.7..................89.2..................66.1

    CPU utilization...............3.5....................7.1...................4.7

    Access Time..................12.7..................13.7..................14.7

    I don't have max and min Read rates (or any Write rates) for my HDD's; I only keep record of the Average Read speed:

    120GXP (80GB)..........38079

    WD800BB..................40563

    THG's WD2000JB might be around 46000-48000 (I'm guessing.)


    I know these numbers are probably only useful to me, since my test system is different from THG's (XP1800 on a K7S5A), but I threw these out there anyway 'cuz THG bugs me. And I'm in no hurry to buy a new hard drive anytime soon, as mine are fast enough for me. :)
    Now, my 3D-accelerator, on the other hand . . . is another story. :rolleyes:
     
  5. edperks

    edperks Life is Good

    Joined:
    May 12, 2002
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I have one of the WD800JB 80 gig with 8 meg of cache and I love It. It runs cooler and less noise than my Deskstar 46 gig.
     
  6. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Re:

    well when my 60 gig Deskstar failed I got an 80 gig WD JB SE then a 120 gig WD JB SE and they run really cool with very little noise as well. I love them.

    Vampyromaniac makes a good point when he says THG do some rather strange comparisions sometimes ..... ive noticed that myself.
     
  7. rtoledo

    rtoledo New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: why?

    You are correct about the test procedures, I have always seen these reviews were things are just not UP TO Date across the board.

    I just bought the new Highpoint rocketRaid 404 and prior to installing it and with clean drives using W2ksp3 I did this test using the built ide ports on the Asus a7m266-d

    winbench 99 2.0 i just wrote down the speed (I should have saved it all)
    WD1000BB begin 34300 end 39200 8.8ms cpu 0.484
    WD1200JB begin 48000 end 49200 8.9ms

    with Rocketraid 404 both as Raid 0 16k the 120 as boot drive, it looks like the access went up

    begin 71600 end 47200 13.3 ms
    highend disk Winmark 99 28400

    I plan to get a couple of those 200 and add them to this rig, when I do I will post the whole numbers. I was in too much of a hurry and did not do a full test using the Asus board IDE which I highly DISLIKE.
     
  8. Yemble

    Yemble New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

Share This Page

visited