Western Digital Press Release

[Buck]

http://www.wdc.com/company/releases/PressRelease.asp?release=1404

New 60 GB/platter with optional FDB - release date: July.

Maybe worthy of the front page?

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Definitely!
Due to tradition, "storage" news should always go to the frontpage IMO...

 

[CougTek]

Done.

It's been a while since last time we saw a 4 platters 7200rpm IDE drive, isn't it? I'm not sure the 200GB model will sell very well, but the 120GB model of the same family should though. I wouldn't be interested to get a 3 1/3 platters hard drive.

 

[Handruin]

So is that now 2 storage related items beating SR to the front page? Good find on the storage front.

 

[Mercutio]

3 x 60 = 180GB

4 x 60 = 240GB

What's wrong with the 4th platter in this new drive that you only get to use 20GBs of it? Or is it more a matter of waiting for the *JB version?

 

[Buck]

It will be interesting to see if WD actually uses 4 platters. For the few flagship models they sell, I wouldn't be surprised if they use a better yield media and 66 GB per platter for a 3 platter 200 GB drive. This, of course is speculation, but they have done it before. Remember their 30 GB/platter drive? They did yield a 100 GB model which would have made that drive 33 GB/platter. Time will tell...actually, Storage Review will tell.

 

[Fushigi]

3 x 60 = 180GB

4 x 60 = 240GB

What's wrong with the 4th platter in this new drive that you only get to use 20GBs of it? Or is it more a matter of waiting for the *JB version?

7 heads/arms vs. 8. Their design may not include physical room for the 8th head/arm. That would yield 210GB. Dunno about the loss of 10GB. Maybe other overhead eats it away or it's set aside as room to remap failing sectors.

- Fushigi

 

[Buck]

3 x 60 = 180GB

4 x 60 = 240GB

What's wrong with the 4th platter in this new drive that you only get to use 20GBs of it? Or is it more a matter of waiting for the *JB version?

7 heads/arms vs. 8. Their design may not include physical room for the 8th head/arm. That would yield 210GB. Dunno about the loss of 10GB. Maybe other overhead eats it away or it's set aside as room to remap failing sectors.

- Fushigi

That is a possible theory Fushigi.

When I thought about the idea, the first thing that came to mind is expense. It wouldn’t make much sense for a company that doesn’t have much money, or room to lose money, include items in a drive that aren’t profitable. Adding an extra head is expensive (one of the most expensive components in a drive), plus adding another platter and only using one side isn’t cost-effective. Western Digital is just going to yield an extra 10% for each platter and get their maximum capacity.

 

[jtr1962]

My best guess is that the 200 GB model will be ~66.7 GB/platter. It's probably not that big of a deal to pack another 10% on the 60 GB platters. Maybe they just hand select the best platters and heads.

Look for Maxtor to announce its own 60 GB/platter drives soon. If they stick with the 4-platter platform, that's 240 GB! :rofl:

 

[Mercutio]

I'm a little confused, too. Is this drive SATA only or is there an ATA133 offering?

So... Seagate announces the first SATA drive. WD fires back with "first to 200GB" at 7200rpm. Yup. I'm gonna have to agree with jtr that Maxtor will announce a 240GB drive.

 

[NRG = mc²]

Looks like a winner. FDB, S-ATA, 60GBP and 8mb cache should make for a killer drive! Sign me up for one now!

 

[Prof.Wizard]

heads/arms vs. 8. Their design may not include physical room for the 8th head/arm. That would yield 210GB. Dunno about the loss of 10GB. Maybe other overhead eats it away or it's set aside as room to remap failing sectors.

- Fushigi

What about 4-platter featuring 50GB per platter?

If it is 4-platter 200GB, why should it go with uneven platters? If I recall correctly the 100GB SE went with 3 platters of 33.3GB, right?

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Yup. I'm gonna have to agree with jtr that Maxtor will announce a 240GB drive.

If they want to win in the marketing front, they definitely have to invest on total capacity... 240GB is ENORMOUS for my standards (the usual home-user)...

 

[Prof.Wizard]

So is that now 2 storage related items beating SR to the front page? Good find on the storage front.

We only beat them because they have problems with their frontpage.

 

[Tea]

It will be interesting to see if WD actually uses 4 platters. For the few flagship models they sell, I wouldn't be surprised if they use a better yield media and 66 GB per platter for a 3 platter 200 GB drive. This, of course is speculation, but they have done it before.

The day I contradict Buck on matters Western Digital, I will be feeling very brave. It is indeed a Western Digital trait to go playing with platter capacities. None of the other makers do that, at least not to speak of, but WD do it quite often.

 

[Handruin]

Yeah, but could they pull a seagate and use 4 platters of a decrease physical diameter to improve seek time like the X15?

 

[Tea]

What? And produce an ATA drive with a lower seek time? Hell, it might even be faster! Not a chance.

 

[CougTek]

Yeah, but could they pull a seagate and use 4 platters of a decrease physical diameter to improve seek time like the X15?

If the seek time was one of the strong point of their drive, they would talk about it. Also, they advertize that their upcoming ATA champion will feature 60GB per platter, so they have to respect that (or beat it). That, combined to the fact that one of their drives will feature 120GB (2x60GB) pretty much means that the 50GB theory doesn't hold water. Not to forget that if they would do that, their drive would have a transfer rate disadvantage against the 60GB per platter drives of their opponents. 50GB per platter = not a chance.

So far, Buck's suggestion regarding the possibility of 3x66GB platters seems to be the most plausible.