WD2000JD size per platter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon D
  • Start date Start date
J

Jon D

Hello all,

While spending the day finding my desired storage solution, I have come
to a crossroads. Does the WD2000JD have the 83GB platters or 66GB platters?
If they are 66GB, does this mean the rest of the drive uses "older"
technology than it's sibling, the 2500JD? Thanks for any input.

-Jon D
(e-mail address removed)
 
According to www.wdc.com, it uses 3 platters (hence 66 MB).

I dunno about "older technology", but the reviews at www.storagereview.com
put the PATA versions of the 2000 and the 2500 as close in performance, and
the SATA 2500 close to the PATA version, so it's only somewhat unreasonable
to assume that the 2000JD and 2500JS are pretty much equal.

HTH.

Bob Knowlden

Address may be altered to avoid spam. Replace nkbob with bobkn.
 
Bob Knowlden wrote...
According to www.wdc.com, it uses 3 platters (hence 66 MB).

I dunno about "older technology", but the reviews at www.storagereview.com
put the PATA versions of the 2000 and the 2500 as close in performance, and
the SATA 2500 close to the PATA version, so it's only somewhat unreasonable
to assume that the 2000JD and 2500JS are pretty much equal.
Click to expand...

Whoops, I guess I could've checked their website before posting <doh>.
Thanks for the information; I guess I'll be going with the 2000JD anyways,
considering the near identical benchmark scores, identical cache size, and
relatively small 20% difference in platter density.

-Jon D
(e-mail address removed)
 
Bob Knowlden said:
According to www.wdc.com, it uses 3 platters
Click to expand...
(hence 66 MB).
Click to expand...

or 2 dual sided and a single sided platter (hence 80GB).
I dunno about "older technology", but the reviews at www.storagereview.com
put the PATA versions of the 2000 and the 2500 as close in performance, and
the SATA 2500 close to the PATA version, so it's only somewhat unreasonable
to assume that the 2000JD and 2500JS are pretty much equal.
Click to expand...

The clue is in the STR.
 
Jon D said:
Bob Knowlden wrote...


Whoops, I guess I could've checked their website before posting <doh>.
Thanks for the information; I guess I'll be going with the 2000JD anyways,
considering the near identical benchmark scores, identical cache size, and
relatively small 20% difference in platter density.
Click to expand...

There is no difference in densities if the STR is the same.
 
That's a point. WDC says 3 platters, but doesn't specify the number of
heads.

Maybe that's why I went for the 160 GB version. Two platters, four heads.
 
Back
Top