I found the article on hard disk performance interesting. I am curious, however, about the Western Digital 1200JB. This is their new 7200 rpm 120G drive with 8M of cache on it.
I just bought this drive and am currently using it. While it isn't "so fast" as to knock my socks off, it certainly doesn't feel sluggish either. In fact, I'm pretty pleased with its performance as compared to a previous 40G drive that also ran at 7200 rpm. (and yes, I am using an ATA100 card and the appropriate 80-wire cable on both drives)
Anyway, what I am curious about is why this article shows it to be such a sluggish performer as compared to the other drives in the article. The article actually shows that most of the 5400 rpm drives beat it on "real world" style benchmarks.
Any ideas? Was the article wrong? Or is it actually slower than these 5400's? And if it is slower, any idea what might have made it slow?
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
I also thought the scores for the WD1200 series were oddly low. I own a WD1200JB and am extremely pleased with its performance. I am not however to giddy about the sound it produces, or how it is now the loudest thing in my system. My GXP60 (Stil going strong, phew....) is almost silent when the JB spins down.
Anyways, only yesterday I ran benchmarks (a couple of times to be sure) with my JB and got the following scores:
PCmark 1099-1108 (varies)
My system is an AMD Athlon 1.2Ghz, KK266 w/512SDR
The 1200JB is running off of the VIA controlled IDE ports at UDMA5.
Those scores are right up there with the 800BB and JB. (Sorry I don't have the HDtach prog.)
I have a feeling some other variable was at work when the BB and JB were benchmarked, but who knows? Just thought I would post my facts.
Yeah, we were suprised by these numbers too and contacted Western Digital that sent us two new harddisks, unfortunately these performed identical and we have yet to find a cause. For now we'd just not recommend these disks wholeheartedly as the numbers seem a little off, and as pointed out by others might not be a good indication of their performance, but are accurate as per our findings.
Strange thing is the fact that both the 1200BB and 1200JB experienced the same problem, whereas the 800BB and 800JB were not affected. You'd think that if one disk is defective the other would still do well, but both 120GB WD disks performed less than expected. From what we've learnt both the 80 and 120GB versions of these 7200-rpm WD disks use the same control hardware, which makes the PCB mounted underneath virtually identical. The only difference would be a different firmware.
Although we could've pulled these two disks from the article or postponed the article to a later date we felt we did everything possible to setup a proper testbed and testing environment. If the 1200BB and 1200JB weren't able to show their full potential under these conditions whereas the other disks were able to then whose to blame? We'll be sure to update the article when we get new information from WD regarding this or do a new roundup (as there's a whole set of new disks on the horizon) in a few weeks that might shed a different light on things. For now we'll just stick with the results we've measured and cannot recommend the 1200JB or 1200BB.