[click to enlarge]

Using another application, HD Tach, the testing progressed. Here drives were compared head-to-head to get an ideal of over all capability. The first test was between the 320 GB WD3200SD and the 250 GB WD2500KS. The more expensive WD3200SD was able to beat the 2500KS, except for in two areas- burst speed and random access time. In these areas the size of the 16 MB cache is able to make the difference and help performance. When dealing with overall performance the WD3200SD is still a faster drive (reading and writing) but considering the price and size difference the KS still does well.

[click to enlarge] 

Moving along, we can see a comparision between the WD2500KS and the baseline Maxtor hard drive. Here the older Maxtor does not stand much of a chance. The WD has twice the cache and three times the capacity, so its better speeds and access times are no surprise. This test shows that the WD2500KS may not be an enterprise-level performance drive, but it is not a budget drive either.

[click to enlarge]

Did someone say "enterprise-level performance drive"? Here is a comparision of the WD2500KS and the program's built-in test of the WD Raptor 74 GB. As expected the 10,000 RPM Raptor is able to beat the larger drive in most areas, like access time and read/write speeds, but the larger cache of the WD2500KS has much better burst speeds (up to 171 MB/s).

[ WD2500KS / WD3200SD ]

In a final test the SE16 was once again compared to the 320 GB Caviar RE. This test is getting a bit old, but again, it shows much of what we have come to expect. The smaller size of the 250 GB drive hinders it in some areas, but in the end it was able to earn an overall better score because of strong access times, good random read speeds, and a linear read time which is not far behind that of its more expensive cousin.