Jump to content


Photo

Western Digital WD1001FAES revealed


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,086 posts

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   144.82KB   526 downloads

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   41KB   1765 downloads
Attached File  WD1001FALS HD Tune.png   40.66KB   1631 downloads

Attached File  WD1001FAES Crystal.png   95.81KB   1474 downloads
Attached File  WD1001FALS Crystal.png   92.01KB   1298 downloads

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#2 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,086 posts

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   57.11KB   233 downloads

Attached File  HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD1001FAES-00W7A0.png   24.36KB   545 downloads

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#3 Slycer

Slycer

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

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 jedH

jedH

    Member

  • Member
  • 100 posts

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?

Edited by jedH, 06 February 2010 - 07:11 AM.

#5 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,086 posts

Posted 06 February 2010 - 08:15 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?


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 Charles P. Jefferies

Charles P. Jefferies

    Member

  • Mod
  • 95 posts

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 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,086 posts

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   68.52KB   151 downloads
Attached File  hdtach.png   56.01KB   249 downloads
Attached File  HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD1001FAES-00W7A____.png   60.45KB   286 downloads
Attached File  HDTune_Benchmark_WDC_WD1001FAES-00W7A____write.png   50.57KB   232 downloads
Attached File  HDTune_Random_Access_WDC_WD1001FAES-00W7A____.png   87.41KB   160 downloads

Power Consumption
Attached File  wdc power.txt   500bytes   65 downloads

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#8 jedH

jedH

    Member

  • Member
  • 100 posts

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?

Edited by jedH, 17 February 2010 - 03:39 AM.

#9 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,086 posts

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 jedH

jedH

    Member

  • Member
  • 100 posts

Posted 17 February 2010 - 09:54 AM

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

All the best.

#11 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,086 posts

Posted 17 February 2010 - 10:44 AM

Well, we hope to have the first reviews up on the site soon.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#12 jedH

jedH

    Member

  • Member
  • 100 posts

Posted 17 February 2010 - 10:55 AM

okay, good luck with it, ta.

#13 thecollegeboy

thecollegeboy

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 06:56 PM

Anyone reading on this topic today, January 31st 2012 (2 years later) because of the sale in NewEgg.ca ?

Whaddaya think of it?

#14 jedH

jedH

    Member

  • Member
  • 100 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 11:21 PM

necro-posting (esp. for such a lame reason) = poor netiquette.

#15 orion24

orion24

    Member

  • Member
  • 76 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 10:05 AM

As far as I can remember, WD doesn't like giving information about platters in the actual drive name. I don't know what the
WD1001FAES name stand for, but I wouldn't say it necessarily has anything to do with the long awaited higher density 7200K platters
Core i7 920 D0 4.2GHz. Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 v1.0. Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 12GB. NVIDIA GTX 680. ASUS VG278H 3D-Vision2.
Corsair Force GS 240GB (OS drive). VelociRaptor 1TBx2 RAID-0 (gaming). SpinPoint F3 1TBx2 RAID-1 (important files). Barracuda 7200.14 3TBx2 (general storage)



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users