You are not registered yet. Please click here to register!
WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS - i4memory.com - different look at memory
Tags Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS

This is a discussion on WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS within the Hard drives & Controllers forums, part of the Hardware category; I haven't seen much written up anywhere about it but Western Digital are making the switch to 160Gb platters from ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 31-01-2007, 10:39 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
JAFFA's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Nov 16 2005
Location: Bedford, UK
Posts: 660
WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS

I haven't seen much written up anywhere about it but Western Digital are making the switch to 160Gb platters from the old 125Gb platters for their new range. The WD5000KS is a 4 x 125Gb Platter design whereas the new WD5000AAKS is a 3 x 160GB platter design. The benefit of a larger capacity platter is that you can use less platters for the same capacity and in turn there should be a speed increase and supposedly a reduction in heat output.

The PCB is entirely different to the old version and the only other noticable difference is the absence of a molex power connector which can sometimes be a handy thing to have, but that's progress I suppose.

Here are a few Benchies I ran to see what had changed if anything:-

Intel E4300 @ 3.2GHz
Asus P5WDG2 WS Pro (ICH7R controller)
2 x Samsung Spinpoint 2504c RAID0 (OS)
1 x Western Digital WD5000KS - Connected to ICH7R
1 x Western Digital WD5000AAKS - Connected to ICH7R
OS used - XP Media Center Edition 2005


WD5000KS HDTach 32mb


WD5000AAKS HDTach 32mb


WD5000KS vs WD5000AAKS HDTach 32mb


For comparisons sake I also included HDTune benchmarks to verify the findings in HDTach:-

WD5000KS HDTune


WD5000AAKS HDTune



As you can see there is a noticeable speed increase with the move to 160Gb platters, but there is no discernable drop in temperatures. Overall I'm fairly impressed and especially being as the WD5000AAKS is £25 cheaper than the WD5000KS at just £89 including tax.




Maff
JAFFA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2007, 10:43 PM   #2 (permalink)
Administrator
eva2000's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 22 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 22,181
twitter.com/i4memorycom Facebook Page livestream.com/i4memorycom
Blog Entries: 37
Re: WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS

Wow that's a very substantial improvement from platters between disks

Coincidently, I just setup raid 0 on my Asus 680i striker since it has 6x SATAII ports i can transfer my OS disk to a 4x SATA raid 0 array for some pcmark05 benching for the team
eva2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2007, 10:51 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
JAFFA's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Nov 16 2005
Location: Bedford, UK
Posts: 660
Re: WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS

Yup pretty surprising the Sustained Transfer Rate is up approximately 20%, fair enough when on the slowest part of the disk that advantage drops off to almost 0%, but it's still good to see.

Looking forward to you PCMark05 adventures eva, I assume thats with Seagates .10's in RAID0 ?
JAFFA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2007, 11:07 PM   #4 (permalink)
Administrator
eva2000's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 22 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 22,181
twitter.com/i4memorycom Facebook Page livestream.com/i4memorycom
Blog Entries: 37
Re: WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS

Nah 4x 80GB Hitachi 7K80 SATAII raid 0 is alot faster for pcmark05
eva2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2007, 11:11 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
JAFFA's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Nov 16 2005
Location: Bedford, UK
Posts: 660
Re: WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS

oooh, hehe nice!
JAFFA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2007, 06:16 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
Jammer's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Mar 22 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,007
Re: WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS

That sustained transfer rate is up there with the Raptors!!! Sure the random access is not but for single user computing you will not know the diff between this and a Raptor. Looks like some dam fine drives u have there Mafflich.

EDIT: Just ran a HDTach test on my Raptor 36GB and got STR of 72.0MB/s It looks like these new WD drives may be quicker than the Seagate 7200.10's
Jammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2007, 07:03 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
JAFFA's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Nov 16 2005
Location: Bedford, UK
Posts: 660
Re: WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS

I couldn't say whether they are any better or worse than the 7200.10's Jammerlito dude.

The only reason I didn't go for the 7200.10's is because I heard they are quite loud when seeking and this drive is going in the HTPC which needs to be silent and WD are always really quiet compared to other manufacturers... it'd be fair to say I'm a fanboi hehe. In a way it's a bit of a shame though because this drive will never get used for anything other than mass storage, but I can't help but wonder how 4 of these lil critters would do in a matrix raid setup.
JAFFA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2007, 08:07 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
Jammer's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Mar 22 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,007
Re: WD 5000KS vs WD 5000AAKS

I have a 7200.10 and there are actually 2 types. You can distinguish the two by the different motor. One motor has pink glue on it and the other white. The motor with the white glue is actually quieter. But yes you're 100% correct the WD KS series is definitely quieter than the Seagates.
Jammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
5000aaks, 5000ks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools



All times are GMT +11. The time now is 01:58 PM.

no new posts