Western Digital WD2000JB 200 gig, worlds fastest drive??

Zardon · Oct 9, 2002, 06:42 PM

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>

***craig5320*** · Oct 9, 2002, 06:52 PM

Santa you've got 2months! get going! NOW.

Zardon · Oct 9, 2002, 07:00 PM

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.

Vampyromaniac · Oct 9, 2002, 10:07 PM

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.

edperks · Oct 9, 2002, 10:30 PM

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.

Zardon · Oct 9, 2002, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by edperks
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.

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.

rtoledo · Oct 12, 2002, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vampyromaniac
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.

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.

Yemble · Oct 13, 2002, 11:36 AM

Man, you guys have such short memories!

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/thread.php?id=5800

Oct 9, 2002, 06:42 PM	#1
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	Western Digital WD2000JB 200 gig, worlds fastest drive?? 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>

Oct 9, 2002, 06:52 PM	#2
*craig5320* HH Administrator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 8,572 Rep Power: 445 System Specs	Santa you've got 2months! get going! NOW. __________________ HardwareHeaven on Facebook

Oct 9, 2002, 10:07 PM	#4
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	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. __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Oct 13, 2002, 11:36 AM	#8
Yemble DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Yorkshire, By Gum! Posts: 46 Rep Power: 0	Western Digital - Worlds Most Unreliable Drive? Man, you guys have such short memories! http://www.hardwareheaven.com/thread.php?id=5800 __________________ See all, hear all, say nowt. Eat all, sup all, pay nowt. And if tha does owt for nowt, alus do it for thisen.

Oct 9, 2002, 07:00 PM	Thread Starter #3
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	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.

Oct 9, 2002, 10:30 PM	#5
edperks HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 780 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	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.