Storage Forums: Western Digital WD1001FAES revealed - Storage Forums

Jump to content

Advertisement

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Western Digital WD1001FAES revealed 1TB 64MB Cache - early benchmarks posted

#1 User is online   Brian 

  • SR Admin
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 3,629
  • Joined: 29-December 09

Posted 01 February 2010 - 09:40 AM

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.

Attached File  drive.jpg (144.82K)
Number of downloads: 520

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.

Attached File  WD1001FAES HD Tune.png (41K)
Number of downloads: 1756
Attached File  WD1001FALS HD Tune.png (40.66K)
Number of downloads: 1624

Attached File  WD1001FAES Crystal.png (95.81K)
Number of downloads: 1471
Attached File  WD1001FALS Crystal.png (92.01K)
Number of downloads: 1297
Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview


If you would like to remove this advertisement, please register.

#2 User is online   Brian 

  • SR Admin
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 3,629
  • Joined: 29-December 09

Posted 03 February 2010 - 06:15 PM

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

Attached File  caviarblack64sata.png (57.11K)
Number of downloads: 230

Attached File  HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD1001FAES-00W7A0.png (24.36K)
Number of downloads: 541
Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

#3 User is offline   Slycer 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 16-February 06

Posted 06 February 2010 - 05:16 AM

Hey! I like WD's a lot but don't have any comparison info.. How does this drive compare to others on the market?

#4 User is offline   jedH 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 14-January 07

Posted 06 February 2010 - 07:11 AM

I'm guessing WD1002FAEX would be no better...
It just has the SATA 6G connection which shouldn't make any differecne as SATA 3G is still more than enough?

This post has been edited by jedH: 06 February 2010 - 07:11 AM


#5 User is online   Brian 

  • SR Admin
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 3,629
  • Joined: 29-December 09

Posted 06 February 2010 - 08:15 AM

View PostSlycer, on 06 February 2010 - 05:16 AM, said:

Hey! I like WD's a lot but don't have any comparison info.. How does this drive compare to others on the market?


We compared it to the current comparable from WD in the first post. We're working on reviews right now.
Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

#6 User is offline   Charles P. Jefferies 

  • Member
  • Group: Mod
  • Posts: 95
  • Joined: 03-January 10

Posted 07 February 2010 - 02:52 PM

Those are some nice burst data transfer rates - the larger cache size helps there.

The access time is reasonably low as well (looking at the 12.1ms reading).
Contributor - StorageReview.com
SLAVE V | HP EliteBook 8740w | 17" 1920x1200 DreamColor 2 IPS | i5-560M | ATI M7820 | 8GB | WD5000BEKT | 3YR ADP

#7 User is online   Brian 

  • SR Admin
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 3,629
  • Joined: 29-December 09

Posted 09 February 2010 - 10:06 AM

We're still working on the full review, but here's a set of benchmarks from our test computer. I just added benchmarks to the Seagate Constellation thread as well, these were both taken from the same machine.

Attached File  crystal.png (68.52K)
Number of downloads: 150
Attached File  hdtach.png (56.01K)
Number of downloads: 245
Attached File  HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD1001FAES-00W7A____.png (60.45K)
Number of downloads: 280
Attached File  HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD1001FAES-00W7A____write.png (50.57K)
Number of downloads: 229
Attached File  HDTune_Random_Access_WDC_WD1001FAES-00W7A____.png (87.41K)
Number of downloads: 157

Power Consumption
Attached File  wdc power.txt (500bytes)
Number of downloads: 62
Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

#8 User is offline   jedH 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 14-January 07

Posted 17 February 2010 - 03:31 AM

So what's the story with this, is it to eventually replace the WD1001FALS?

Will it always have 500GB platters now like the WD1002FAEX (which also has two actuators)
If so is the only difference between the 1002FAEX and 1001FAES the SATA interface?

Is there going to be similar sorts of differentiation with the 2TB Blacks & 2TB RE's?

This post has been edited by jedH: 17 February 2010 - 03:39 AM


#9 User is online   Brian 

  • SR Admin
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 3,629
  • Joined: 29-December 09

Posted 17 February 2010 - 07:56 AM

Jed, good questions but since WD hasn't really made the drive official yet, it's still not on their website, it's hard to know their intentions.
Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

#10 User is offline   jedH 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 14-January 07

Posted 17 February 2010 - 09:54 AM

Damn, fair enough, thanks.
How's the review going?

All the best.

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users