WD 640GB Black Edition Problem

[zod96]

Just got my new WD 640 GB Black Edition HD I ran HD tune and here's what I get

http://img372.imageshack.us/my...nchmarkwdcwd640mz7.png]

[/URL]

And my old well 2 week old WD 320GB SE16 Drive

http://img357.imageshack.us/my...nchmarkwdcwd320ez1.png]

[/URL]

What is wrong here? My 320GB out preforms my 364GB Black Drive. I thought the 640GB black drive was supposed to be much faster than any 720 rpm drive out. Am I missing something here???? And as far as I can tell its setup for Sata 3.0

 

[MTDEW]

Dude, both scores for both drives looks unusually low!
Click the info tab in HD tune for both drives and be sure you're running in UDMA and not pio mode.

 

[Lightning983]

I don't really see the problem, except that big drop @arround 30% on the 640GB drive.
I got similar benches on all my drives when i had BitDefender running, i disabled it for 5 minutes to run the bench and got this:

http://img354.imageshack.us/im...nchmarkwdcwd640mn6.png

It's pretty similar to yours as far as i can see, and i'm not really complaining on the speed of the drive

 

[MTDEW]

16ms access times arent normal for those drives.
They should be around 12ms.

I also had those huge "dips" also on my AAKS and Velociraptor until i enabled AHCI.

 

[zod96]

Ok I disable just about everything, I have like 15 processes running. If I turn AMM off on both my 320GB and the 640GB the access time on both are like 13.3. So far the 320GB is pretty much tied in everything with the 640GB. I thought the 640GB was alot faster but I guess not. With AMM on the 640GB has access times of like 17 ms and the 320GB with AMM on its like 16, and I am using AHCI...

 

[MTDEW]

I dont have screenshots, but here are the numbers for my 640gb WD6400AAKS-00A7B0
And it NEVER vaires enough to go out of the 12ms range.

Min - 50.1mbs
Max - 119.4mbs
Avg - 90.4mbs
Access time - 12.1ms
Burst rate - 152.2mbs
Cpu - usage - 1.6%
I can run this test all day and although the other numbers will vary by alot if something accesses the disc while benchmarking , its always 11.9 -12.4 on access time, and it was for every review i ever saw also.
Ive never seen a 16.4 for the AAKS and certainly not 15.7 for a 640 black AALS

Info
Supported - UDMA Mode 6 (Ultra ATA/133)
Active - UDMA Mode 6 (Ultra ATA/133)

My AAM is on , never changed from factory settings
And on write caching on the disk is set in device manager, the enable advanced performance is not checked and i never have.

What UDMA mode are your dirves in?
Do you AHCI on in the bios?

Admittedly, im no hard drive expert, but you are correct IMO , there is a problem, you should be getting better performance.

 

[zod96]

My UDMA mode is 6 and AAM is off. I also have AHCI enabled. And write caching is enable as well. Maybe the 640GB is just not as fast as alot people say it is. So far every test I have done, both the 320GB and the 640GB were pretty even in everything

 

[MTDEW]

Well, i dont have a black edition to test, so i certainly cant say how it does on the exact same pc vs the AAKS.
I'd think comparisons of the two drives on the same pc would give a better indication of what the scores should be. (of course)

But i'd still agree with your original assessment, the Black drive should perform better on the same pc setup than the aaks, it does on the same systems when they are benched for reviews, regardless of the system specs.

 

[Quiksilver]

Dude something is either really FUBAR'd with your drives or your motherboard.

My almost 6 year old drive does better compared to that first screen.

http://i40.tinypic.com/1043uit.jpg

If I were you I'd see if there is any BIOS updates for your motherboard or chipset updates.

Edit:
Also, benchmarks shouldn't be ran when you have other stuff running; so kill the AV for a minute or two, plus anything else. Just the necessary drivers and OS files should be running pretty much.

 

[j0j081]

I just got this drive for a Christmas present so I hope there is nothing wrong with them.

 

[MTDEW]

Nah, doubt its anything with the drives themselves, its probably just a configuration error, or something accessing the drives while benching.

When we say we think there is something wrong, we arent referring to the actual drives themselves.
Believe me, if there was something wrong with the drives, it usually shows up with errors or lockups during the read/write benchmarks and the benchmarks dont finish at all.

 

[zod96]

Yeah I don't think their's anything wrong with the drive itself. Their has to be a configuration issue or something. Or after looking at all the people that said this drive was really fast, you have to remember that almost all of them are running it in raid. I did more testing last night between my 320 drive and the 640 drive, and with AAM on both drives are identical in just about everything. With it off the 640 is slightly fast, 14 ms access time vs 15 ms access time. I'm returning the 640 and getting the samsung f1 320 gb

 

[Quiksilver]

AAM is just for acoustics.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: zod96
Just got my new WD 640 GB Black Edition HD I ran HD tune and here's what I get

http://img372.imageshack.us/my...nchmarkwdcwd640mz7.png

And my old well 2 week old WD 320GB SE16 Drive

http://img357.imageshack.us/my...nchmarkwdcwd320ez1.png

What is wrong here? My 320GB out preforms my 640GB Black Drive. I thought the 640GB black drive was supposed to be much faster than any 720 rpm drive out. Am I missing something here???? And as far as I can tell its setup for Sata 3.0

The black edition excelled in real world applications and NOT just lame synthetic benchmarks.

Although that drop at 30% does not look good.