Quote Originally Posted by jalyst View Post
Damn that is a lot slower, and bested by a 500GB F3 to add further insult.

Not sure if storagereview, when they were connected via SATA, were doing a read or write test though.
Zalbard's was write, maybe theirs was read, but isn't read typically faster anyway?

I wonder if WD's other new model with the SATA 6G(3) interface is any better? WD1002FAEX
I know the interface itself is irrelevant as SATA 3G(2) is still plenty of headroom, but maybe it's fw is less dodgy?
the pics here in this thread were done with hdtune pro. the guy at storage review uses the freeware version hdtune which only benches the read speed.

apart from that, i don't know if there are differences between the results from hdtune 2.55 and hdtune pro 3.5. different versions might end up with different results due to changed testing characteristics - no idea.

i have to agree though. seems a bit slow no matter how you look at it
i'm using wd drives ever since (they were always one of the fastest and most reliable drives in my book), but wd drives always cost a bit more compared to their competitor's drives. i don't think they can justify the premium prices anymore if the drives are that much slower than the drives from other brands.