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

[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/

WD Caviar Blue 1 TB, SATA 3 Gb/s, 32 MB Cache, WD10EALS
http://wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=793

Updated: WD1002FAEX is available in Japan



http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...13/etc_wd.html

[Hondacity]

could you grabe their graph and pic? i don't want to join their nice forum

[dengyong]

could you grabe their graph and pic? I don't want to join their nice forum

+1.

[DeadlyFire]

"So we were messing around with the MyBook 3.0 external drive this weekend and went to see what was inside. It's the 1TB WD1001FAES, which is a Caviar Black with 64MB cache."

Here are a few benchmarks to compare the new model with the current WD1001FALS (32MB cache).

*Disclaimer - Benchmarking was done with one drive going through the motherboard's SATA and the other going through USB 3.0, so they are not on equal terms. We'll do more detailed work in the review.













Here are fresh benchmarks of the WD1001FAES when connected directly via SATA instead of USB.

[zalbard]

Looks like Samsung F3 is a lot faster. Maybe it needs a new firmware or something...

[Oliverda]

Looks like Samsung F3 is a lot faster. Maybe it needs a new firmware or something...

Lot faster?

Could you show me some bench results?

[LightSpeed]

How can sequential reads/writes be an indication? WD always seem to optimise their drives for random reads/writes?

[zalbard]

[jetjaguar]

i need to buy some hard drives and was waiting for the 64mb cache 1tb blacks to become available .. maybe i should just get samsung or the current 1tb blacks

[jalyst]

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?

*edit* I see Zalbard's added read too now.

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?

[RPGWiZaRD]

Looks a bit slow to me. Samsung F3 usually score 116~120MB/s avg read in HD Tune and it's really silent and good drive. I got the 500GB single platter version for OS drive and it doesn't make a lot of noise at all and runs very cool. I was a WD fan for the past 2 years or so but I'm quickly converting to Samsung now with the F2 series for cheap and reliable storage and F3 for cheap and fast drives, it's a great improvement since F1 series IMO. Samsung F2 has also better reliability than WD's Green series, difficult to say about F3 as it's so new still but so far so good.

[xdan]

Damn that is a lot slower, and bested by a 500GB F3 to add further insult.

Some of the best F3 500GB, punch even harder "SATA 3" ....I at least don't need SATA3...USB 3.0 is another story...

[SubZero.it]

Lol

[RaZz!]

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.

[jetjaguar]

hmm decisions decisions .. the 1tb samsung f3s are like 89 .. should just get 4 of them .. but the 64mb cache has to make some sort of difference right ?
i really need some hds =(

[kuhla]

Hmm. Curious to see where this goes after a bit more testing.

[generics_user]

random read/write speeds are quite good

i get ~0.5mb on my Spinpoint F1 data drives (Samung SSD is my system disk)

[jalyst]

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.

I see, thanks for clarifying.

[onethreehill]

500GB platters?
WD Caviar Blue 1 TB, SATA 3 Gb/s, 32 MB Cache, 7200 RPM WD10EALS
http://wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=793

[Nintendork]

My seagate 7200.12 1TB

[LightSpeed]

random read/write speeds are quite good

i get ~0.5mb on my Spinpoint F1 data drives (Samung SSD is my system disk)

That was my point. WD have faster random read/writes, but people still think sequential read/writes are the end of it all

Also, maybe the drive will be better optimised when its sold as a SATA drive and not inside a usb enclosure.

[Oliverda]

It's just a simple synthetic benchmark.

[jalyst]

That was my point. WD have faster random read/writes, but people still think sequential read/writes are the end of it all

Also, maybe the drive will be better optimised when its sold as a SATA drive and not inside a usb enclosure.

But isnt random r/w demonstrated by access time?
The F3 still seems to have an edge there, or at least be equal judging by posted tests.

Of course the WD may well improve yet...

[zalbard]

It's just a simple synthetic benchmark.

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

[jalyst]

It's just a simple synthetic benchmark.

What would you suggest is a more rigorous, well-rounded, comparison?