WD Caviar Black 1 TB, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, WD1002FAEX

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-08-2010, 09:25 AM
jetjaguar

as much as i wanted caviar blacks .. i got too good of a deal on the samsung f3s
02-08-2010, 09:27 AM
Oliverda

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

Well, you wanted me to show you some bench results...

You're right.:D

Yes it looks like that your Samsung F3 is a faster in linear read and average access time.

Can you bench it with CrystalMark?
02-08-2010, 09:33 AM
zalbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliverda

You're right.:D

Yes it looks like that your Samsung F3 is a faster in linear read and average access time.

These are not even mine, took them from this site (not the best source probably, but their hard drive reviews are usually decent, besides testing an HDD is not rocket science).
I have an 1TB F3, though, can post some benches if it's really necessary, I was just too lazy and used an online source. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Can you bench it with CrystalMark?

Hm, sure!

Edit: here it is.

Warning: I think I am far from the perfect person to perform this test... I haven't defragged since I've got the drive 5 months ago and I only have 20GB of space left so my score is messed up, I suggest using some reviews for the proper comparison. But since I promised to post...

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...alDiskMark.jpg

It's running off ICH10R, ACHI enabled.
Obviously reads should be waaaaaaay higher... a clean install on an empty drive would've fixed this.

I can defrag and post another screenshot, but since my drive is full the score is obviously still going to be lower than it should be (outer sectors are taken, etc...).
02-10-2010, 07:55 PM
onethreehill

WD1002FAEX is available in Japan

http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...mage/swwd1.gif http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...mage/swwd3.gif

http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...13/etc_wd.html
02-11-2010, 12:49 AM
Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

I have personally replaced 5x as many Samsung drives and 10x Toshiba drives as any other brand. Very very rarely do I have to replace WD drives in my customers systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay more money and have a little less speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.
02-11-2010, 01:32 AM
IvanAndreevich

Quote:

Originally Posted by jetjaguar

as much as i wanted caviar blacks .. i got too good of a deal on the samsung f3s

Newegg deal for $75 with an enclosure, right? I got three :up: Upgrading all my systems at once.
02-11-2010, 01:53 AM
zanzabar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

I have personally replaced 5x as many Samsung drives and 10x Toshiba drives as any other brand. Very very rarely do I have to replace WD drives in my customers systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay more money and have a little less speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.

samsung didnt always use thier own fab so the old ones are the same as the old hitatchi/ibm, and the newer ones from the 501j/f1 and newer, the main problems are that samsung was one of the 1st to go to 32MB of cashe and they looked DOA on bad bioses and there are a seemingly large amount that have physical damage that ive seen from newegg but they now ship in a foam sleeve and not just the plastic.

the only one that i dont trust anymore is seagate

on topic
is this even an impovment other than it should only come in 500GB platters with the sata6 drives
02-11-2010, 04:33 AM
jalyst

Quote:

Originally Posted by zanzabar

on topic
is this even an impovment other than it should only come in 500GB platters with the sata6 drives

so the sata3 won't only come in 500gb platters now too?
02-11-2010, 05:12 AM
AAbenson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

I have personally replaced 5x as many Samsung drives and 10x Toshiba drives as any other brand. Very very rarely do I have to replace WD drives in my customers systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay more money and have a little less speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.

<:D> Ill stick with samsung even if they are slightly faster.Why? Entirely due to their low failure rate of current drives on the market.
Due to recent cases all hdd makers admitted to have failure rates annualized and compounded .
also judging by reviews and user forums on various sites WD's hdd failure rate is in the top 3.

i have personally replaced 4x as many WD drives as other brands(i have 4 Samsungs working perfectly and 1 WD which broke after 6 months) so my statistics show that WD has a failure rate at least 4 times higher than other brands.
i also have 1(one) Toshiba drive which is still working after 4 years 24/7,so my statistics show that WD's drive failure rate is in realitay maybe even higher compared to specific manufacturers.

Very very rarely do I have to replace Samsung drives in my customers/friends systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay the same money and have the same or more speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.</:D>

<:yepp:>also i would like to point out that when it comes to storage i dont really care if the storage device is 10% faster or slower than any other x brand as long as its reliable.

if i would ever need storage speed in excess of 100MB/s i would buy an intel G2 or the like.<:yepp:>
02-11-2010, 05:30 AM
initialised

Nice, but F3 is still better value.
02-11-2010, 06:42 AM
jalyst

Can we got off the fanboy x make is better y make debate please?
None is better than the other, it changes all the time, sometimes one is a market leader in perf/reliability, other times not.
Granted Seagate has had an unusually long run of mediocrity, but for many years fanboys religiously expounded upon its virtues
Save it for a thread that's focussed on such a (IMO) pointless debate, particularly for desktop class drives.
02-12-2010, 09:22 PM
Orion24

I wonder why the 2TB Caviar Black & the RE4 versions perform better than the WD1001FAES. Is this really a 500GB/platter 7200RPM drive?
02-12-2010, 09:29 PM
jalyst

I don't think this is it's true performance, wait for the full review from storagereview (linked to earlier)
Also 4x 500GB platter (2TB RE4, & Black) Vs 2x 500GB platter (WD1001FAES) is not a really a fair comparison.
02-13-2010, 09:42 AM
Clairvoyant129

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst

Can we got off the fanboy x make is better y make debate please?
None is better than the other, it changes all the time, sometimes one is a market leader in perf/reliability, other times not.
Granted Seagate has had an unusually long run of mediocrity, but for many years fanboys religiously expounded upon its virtues
Save it for a thread that's focussed on such a (IMO) pointless debate, particularly for desktop class drives.

How is it being a fanboy when it's true??? Samsung F3s are a better value and reviews clearly show that.

You're right it does change but at the moment that isn't true.
02-13-2010, 10:14 AM
FischOderAal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

You can't make such claims based on the reviews of some people. For instance, Samsung sold 2 Million drives and 20,000 drives failed (1 percent) while Seagate sold 1 Million drives and 10,000 drives failed (1 percent as well). What do you think you will read more often on teh internetz? "Samsung teh suckz" or "Seagate teh suckz"?

Without internal data directly from the manufacturer, all you did was making assumptions based on ... what?

All that's left is your personal experience and with that experience, you have good reason to stick with Western Digital. Especially with hard drives people (me included) like to stick with what has proven to be good. Nobody cares about defect hard drives, but the data is what's important.

I don't want to doubt your experience, but as always you will find someone with the exact opposite of your experience.
02-14-2010, 03:17 AM
onethreehill

WD1002FAEX Tested
http://avenuel.tistory.com/568
Translated
02-14-2010, 03:44 AM
Oliverda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I'll stick with my western digital black drives even if they are slightly slower in certain synthetic benchmarks. Why? Entirely due to them having the lowest failure rate of current drives on the market. Due to a recent court case, Seagate admitted their failure rate is roughly 1% annualized (compound that by a number of years). And judging by reveiws posted by users on various online stores, the Samsung drives are probably even higher.

I have personally replaced 5x as many Samsung drives and 10x Toshiba drives as any other brand. Very very rarely do I have to replace WD drives in my customers systems.

And when you guys consider the massive amount of important data people store on hard drives these days... I'd rather pay more money and have a little less speed in order to reduce the chances of a drive failure and subsequent loss of all it's data.

Agreed. WD is the most reliable HDD brand. I've seen too many dead Samsung HDDs.:shakes:
02-14-2010, 02:57 PM
Orion24

Quote:

Originally Posted by onethreehill

WD1002FAEX Tested
http://avenuel.tistory.com/568
Translated

Much better. True 7200RPM 500GB/platter transfer rates.

I wonder if WD clears its last stock of 333GB platters with the first batches of the WD1001FAES drive (at least those that are to be used for the external hdds) and it shows poorer performance.
02-14-2010, 04:24 PM
onethreehill

WD Caviar Blue 1 TB, 32 MB Cache, WD10EALS listed in Europe
http://salzburg.com.geizhals.at/eu/a503267.html
02-15-2010, 06:25 AM
onethreehill

Western Digital SATA 6Gb/sec 1TB Caviar Black (WD1002FAEX) Review
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=1
02-15-2010, 08:01 AM
Sam_oslo

Quote:

Originally Posted by onethreehill

Two 500GB platters?
..

WD Caviar Black 1 TB, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, WD1002FAEX
http://wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?DriveID=792

WD Caviar Black 1 TB, SATA 3 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache, WD1001FAES
http://forums.storagereview.com/inde...faes-revealed/

I could never understand WD's naming-logic.

SATA3 6Gb/s won't make any difference for this kind of drive. The question is if this WD1001FAES is a 500GB/platter too? In case these 2 would perform exactly the same, and then I don't get the logic behind 2 identical drives either.
02-15-2010, 08:55 AM
Orion24

Quote:

Originally Posted by PCPER article

Caviar Black 1TB: Great drive. I was expecting a little more, but not because of the SATA 6Gb/sec interface. With dual actuators at play, a massive 64MB cache, 500GB platters, and the same dual core CPU of the 2TB models, this drive should have at least matched those other drives in performance.

I agree with that. As it currently stands, I'm leaning towards 2 Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TBs to replace my current RE2 RAID-0 array.

Maybe WD wants high-performance buyers like myself to pay it more for the top performing drives and saves some performance add ons only for the ultra expensive 4-platter drives. The last thing I want to verify before going for the Samsungs, is the price & performance of the 1.5TB RE4 drive. If it performs like the 2TB model and its pricing is attractive, it might give me another thought before I make my purchase
02-15-2010, 08:27 PM
tbone8ty

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136320

is the 32mb 500g caviar black a good raid 0 drive? i wanna try raid 0 out since ssd r to expensive
02-16-2010, 11:24 AM
IvanAndreevich

PcPer review: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=870&type=expert
02-16-2010, 01:35 PM
Orion24

I finally ordered 3 Spinpoint F3 1TB drives for €81 each. The total of €243 is still cheaper than the single 2TB WD Caviar Black drive that is at €271, let alone the RE4.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page