Jump to content


Photo

WD Black 4TB Desktop Hard Drive Review (WD4003FZEX) Discussion

HDD WD 4TB

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

#1 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,067 posts

Posted 01 November 2013 - 03:18 PM

The new WD Black is fast - beating all other 4TB competition in every test.    WD Black 4TB Desktop Hard Drive Review (WD4003FZEX)
 

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#2 Mkruer

Mkruer

    Member

  • Member
  • 279 posts

Posted 01 November 2013 - 06:34 PM

Very Impressive, If/when they go to the 1000GB per patter, I can easily see the drive breaching the 200MB/Sec barrier sustained throughput


Lian-Li PC-V2000 Plus Aluminum Case; Seasonic S12 Energy+ 550 PSU; Asus M4A785TD-V EVO; Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition C3 @ 4.0Ghz ; Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme Rev.C; 8GB OCZ AMD Black Edition @ 1333Mhz; Creative Audigy 2 ZS; Sapphire Radeon HD 5770; 1xOCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD3-2VTX180G; 1xWestern Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB; 2xWestern Digital Caviar Green WD20EADS 2TB; Western Digital WDG1U3200 My Book Essential Edition 320GB USB 2.0; Samsung STORY Station 2TB USB 3.0.

#3 ChrisMcPole

ChrisMcPole

    Member

  • Member
  • 128 posts

Posted 01 November 2013 - 07:05 PM

5 platters bother me. nough said.


#4 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,067 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 08:35 AM

Why don't you like five platters? The helium drives will have more than that.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#5 ChrisMcPole

ChrisMcPole

    Member

  • Member
  • 128 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 04:59 PM

Any extra moving parts are bad. And no I'm not an SSD freak. But I think we're at the stage when 1TB per platter must be standard. For me Seagate's approach to this makes more sense regardless of WD's efforts to clear their 800gb platter inventory ;)

 

Why don't you like five platters? The helium drives will have more than that.


#6 unityole

unityole

    Member

  • Member
  • 43 posts

Posted 02 November 2013 - 06:13 PM

Any extra moving parts are bad. And no I'm not an SSD freak. But I think we're at the stage when 1TB per platter must be standard. For me Seagate's approach to this makes more sense regardless of WD's efforts to clear their 800gb platter inventory ;)

 

 

kinda get where you're coming from, imo I think WD did great.  now time to grab a few and hope there are no issues with new drive.  thanks for the great review Brian, compared with other 4tb and old WD 4tb was awesome.

 

@storage review, the sequential 128KB bench mark, it says 16 threads 16 queue, does that mean at a higher queue depth?


Edited by unityole, 02 November 2013 - 06:18 PM.

#7 danwat1234

danwat1234

    Member

  • Member
  • 221 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 04:46 AM

I wonder how specifically they improved performance so much, say the sequential read/write speeds without more data density (data per track)? Does it have the piezoelectric "wrist" like the 2TB Caviar Black?  


Edited by danwat1234, 03 November 2013 - 04:47 AM.

#8 redhotiron2004

redhotiron2004

    Member

  • Member
  • 8 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 02:16 PM

I wonder how specifically they improved performance so much, say the sequential read/write speeds without more data density (data per track)? Does it have the piezoelectric "wrist" like the 2TB Caviar Black?  


They actually improved there performance over the previous generation by just utilizing there 64MB cache in a more optimized way. Now, the cache can be intelligently transferred to a process like reading over writing if it needs more speed. That's the only major difference from the previous generation responsible for increased speed.

Sent from my MK16i using Tapatalk 2


#9 danwat1234

danwat1234

    Member

  • Member
  • 221 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 02:48 PM

But how is the cached used in long sequential operations that would allow for higher speeds without quicker throughput through the heads? Thanks

The only thing missing is a hybrid drive option with this drive.


Edited by danwat1234, 03 November 2013 - 02:50 PM.

#10 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 721 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:23 PM

I think they fixed whatever problem the previous 4 TB Black had with random access, in addition to what they did to improve caching efficiency. Just look at how good the 2 TB Black is compared to the old 4 TB one in random workloads. This even translates into real applications so far that even there the 4 TB Black is mostly slower than the age-old 2 TB model. The new model looks as superior as a WD Black should be!

 

What about platter density of the smaller models? It will be difficult to hit 1 TB with 800 GB platters..

 

MrS


#11 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,067 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 04:20 PM

The 1TB drive is single platter.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#12 unityole

unityole

    Member

  • Member
  • 43 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:02 AM

pretty amazing just cache managed differently increases so much performance..


#13 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,513 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 02:08 AM

Looks good... sadly I think the days of me actually getting super-excited about this are long past, especially given the premium pricing of this and the increasing affordability of SSD's.

 

Still, seeing this kind of performance improvement within the same harddisk architecture generation is impressive.


#14 Kevin OBrien

Kevin OBrien

    StorageReview Editor

  • Admin
  • 1,393 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 04:18 PM

 

kinda get where you're coming from, imo I think WD did great.  now time to grab a few and hope there are no issues with new drive.  thanks for the great review Brian, compared with other 4tb and old WD 4tb was awesome.

 

@storage review, the sequential 128KB bench mark, it says 16 threads 16 queue, does that mean at a higher queue depth?

 

Effective queue depth is ThreadsxQueue... although it looks like the label on that chart is wrong. For HDD sequential its 1T/4Q.


#15 Mickey

Mickey

    Member

  • Patron
  • 2,272 posts

Posted 05 November 2013 - 11:51 PM

I wonder how specifically they improved performance so much, say the sequential read/write speeds without more data density (data per track)? Does it have the piezoelectric "wrist" like the 2TB Caviar Black?  

 

Yes, this line also has the PZT dual-stage actuator. I'm guessing the performance jump is due to code improvements in conjunction with other tweaks.


#16 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 721 posts

Posted 07 November 2013 - 03:15 PM

THe previous 4 TB Black had the dual stage actuator as well. As I said, access times are vastly improved and are IMO a prime candidate to cause this speed-up (in addition to the cache tuning). What enabled them to find the tracks this much faster is a different question.. maybe "just" regular read head improvements?

 

MrS


#17 jtsn

jtsn

    Member

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:47 AM

Or they specifically tuned the firmware to cheat benchmarks? ;) Who knows...


#18 unityole

unityole

    Member

  • Member
  • 43 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 09:40 AM

Or they specifically tuned the firmware to cheat benchmarks? ;) Who knows...

an likely explaination.  however I do believe sequential performance are hard to cheat, not impossible though.  I'd like to think WD is legit as it can be not some samsung phone and SSD tweaked for benchmark softwares =/


Edited by unityole, 08 November 2013 - 09:40 AM.

#19 jtsn

jtsn

    Member

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:18 AM

I like to test my desktop drives on Linux, because most vendors ignore it and target AS SSD, DiskMark, HD Tune and other Windows stuff. Running a find(1) with a cold buffer cache gives a good impression about random read access times. Likewise you can mount something -o sync, extract uncompressed tar archives and delete huge directory trees to get a peek on random write performance.

 

If a drive looks bad there, it may even be the case, that the vendor wants it to look bad, so they can sell expensive enterprise drives with a slightly different firmware instead.  -_-

 

The 8 GB flash caches take the issue to next level. While having almost no effect in practice, because they are to small. 8 GB is just big enough, to make drive look good in benchmarks against SSDs and impress with mostly irrelevant boot times. And that is what sells them.

 

I'm accusing no-one here, but I'm very skeptical and suspicious. If something looks like a engineering marvel out of nowhere, it most likely isn't true. Remember SoftRAM 95? ;)


#20 Kevin OBrien

Kevin OBrien

    StorageReview Editor

  • Admin
  • 1,393 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 10:39 AM

an likely explaination.  however I do believe sequential performance are hard to cheat, not impossible though.  I'd like to think WD is legit as it can be not some samsung phone and SSD tweaked for benchmark softwares =/


I'd be incredibly amazed if someone specifically tried to cheat our benchmarks. Our sample range is 4TB (capacity of the drive), we use direct IO (test isn't buffered) and the testing environment is Linux. I'm not sure how you would get around random access requests skipping around such a massive area.

#21 orion24

orion24

    Member

  • Member
  • 76 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:30 PM

Is it possible that the old black was a re-branded Hitachi with minor tweaks and that this one is the real?


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)

#22 Mickey

Mickey

    Member

  • Patron
  • 2,272 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 07:41 PM

Is it possible that the old black was a re-branded Hitachi with minor tweaks and that this one is the real?

Probably not. HGST and WD are still separate companies, owned by the same parent WDC. I think the regulatory agencies would frown on rebranding until the firms are completely merged.


#23 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 721 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:29 AM

I'd be incredibly amazed if someone specifically tried to cheat our benchmarks. Our sample range is 4TB (capacity of the drive), we use direct IO (test isn't buffered) and the testing environment is Linux. I'm not sure how you would get around random access requests skipping around such a massive area.

Never underestimate the power of the dark side! They'll analyze all the benchmarks done in reviews, in addition to anything that may make it into benchmarks in the future, and make their drive perform better in them. It's an extensive analysis and really evil business. They'll even admit to doing it.. just ask for "firmware tuning" :P

 

MrS


#24 jtsn

jtsn

    Member

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 07:35 AM

I'd be incredibly amazed if someone specifically tried to cheat our benchmarks. Our sample range is 4TB (capacity of the drive), we use direct IO (test isn't buffered) and the testing environment is Linux. I'm not sure how you would get around random access requests skipping around such a massive area.

 

I don't think, they are able to specifically cheat your professional reviews. (They will do some generic optimizations for sure.)

 

My thoughts did go in a different direction: End users buy the drives, run the popular "measure" tools, which show nice colored bars and post the values into forums and Amazon reviews. On these amateur reviews a consumer drive has to look awesome. And if it looks a bit better than reality, it will just sell better than the competition. ;)

 

So I bet all vendors sit in their labs and tune the firmware for these artificial benchmarks used by consumers and end up with "optimizations", which have a negligible effect on the real world performance of a drive.


Edited by jtsn, 10 November 2013 - 07:41 AM.

#25 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,067 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 08:37 AM

Is it possible that the old black was a re-branded Hitachi with minor tweaks and that this one is the real?


No. They're operating independently.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users