Jump to content


Photo

CES 2014 : WD Black 2,3,4 TB vs New generation from other companies.


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

#1 Vampire

Vampire

    Member

  • Member
  • 36 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 12:54 PM

I saw the new WD Black that has very good performance for a HDD compared to other companies.

http://www.wdc.com.r...cts.aspx?id=760

 

But the price is also high.

For a 256 GB Samsung 840 PRO SSD i can buy a 4TB Seagate HDD.

 

So i would rather choose a faster HDD rather than an SSD that will eventually break.

 

I am interested if Seagate & other companies will bring new generations to the table to compete with WD Black, especially that CES 2014 is around the corner.

 

I am interested in at least a 2TB drive.

 

SSHD is also a possibility but in that case i need a fast mechanical drive like the WD Black that also has some SSD.

 

Thank you.


#2 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,298 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 12:56 PM

Probably not, storage companies have not typically found CES a great launch point for new drives. We're aware of one for instance that's waiting until after the event settles down to release. The branded stuff like externals, etc find a better launchpad at CES than drives typically do.


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#3 Vampire

Vampire

    Member

  • Member
  • 36 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 01:08 PM

Would that mean end of January or start of February ?

I am trying to build a new PC.

 

Would you say that the drives you mentioned are next generation HDD from well known companies ?


Edited by Vampire, 02 January 2014 - 01:09 PM.

#4 MRFS

MRFS

    Member

  • Member
  • 190 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 01:43 PM

WD's spec sheet shows a range of 168 - 171 MB/second for the 3TB and 4TB WD Blacks, respectively:

 

http://www.wdc.com/w...2879-771434.pdf

 

 

We got this measurement from the Toshiba 3TB purchased on sale about 2 weeks ago,

and controlled by a Highpoint RocketRAID 2720SGL x8 PCIe RAID controller:

 

 

1xToshiba.3TB.Highpoint.RocketRAID.2720S

 

 

We recently moved that Toshiba 3TB into a Vantec EZ SWAP 4 enclosure,

and it continues to operate at 6G in that 5.25" enclosure:

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16817986001


Edited by MRFS, 02 January 2014 - 01:45 PM.

#5 Vampire

Vampire

    Member

  • Member
  • 36 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 02:05 PM

Are you referring to the Toshiba DT01ACA300 ?

http://storage.toshi.../dt01aca-series

 

That drive at 3TB is half the price of Seagate 4TB in my country. ( they are made in China 100% - 2 year warranty - not trustable to me )

 

The spec sheet show low Acoustics which is good, but without test means nothing.

 

Did anyone properlly test this drive vs the new WD Black ?


Edited by Vampire, 02 January 2014 - 02:07 PM.

#6 MRFS

MRFS

    Member

  • Member
  • 190 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 02:42 PM

We bought the retail boxed version, because other Newegg customers

have recommended it because of its superior packaging:

 

http://www.toshiba.c...TB/PH3300U-1I72

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822149396

 

I believe the retail boxed version is the same as the OEM version:

both are $120 at Newegg:

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822149408


#7 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,298 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 05:09 PM

Would that mean end of January or start of February ?

I am trying to build a new PC.

 

Would you say that the drives you mentioned are next generation HDD from well known companies ?

 

Really can't say for sure on timing unfortunately...or what it is that we've seen. NDAs and all ;)


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#8 Vampire

Vampire

    Member

  • Member
  • 36 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 05:34 PM

It's good that it's coming soon. That's important. I will wait.

 

Thank you very much !

 

Do you have any experience with these Chinese made Toshiba drives ?


Edited by Vampire, 02 January 2014 - 05:34 PM.

#9 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,566 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 06:28 PM

Guess we'll all have to wait for the reviews on the Toshiba... if they are coming. ;)


#10 MRFS

MRFS

    Member

  • Member
  • 190 posts

Posted 02 January 2014 - 06:57 PM

http://hardforum.com...d.php?t=1755605

 

"These are rebadged Hitachi's, as Toshiba received HGST's plant as a condition of the WDC buyout."

 

That is also my understanding about these latest "Toshiba" brand HDDs.


#11 Vampire

Vampire

    Member

  • Member
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 03:15 AM

The drive is no longer rebadged hitachi. From December 2012 it is manufactured in China.

Also seems like an old generation HDD. ( http://www.storagere...ca_desktop_hdds )

9 august 2012

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822149408

http://goughlui.com/?p=2299

 

http://www.madshrimp...0#axzz2pJxJDFzG


#12 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 742 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:39 AM

They may be manufactured in China, but it's surely still the same design as under the Hitachi flag. And I wouldn't call 1 1 TB per platter 7.2k rpm driver "old generation". There is nothing better, despite some models being newer. Sure, the new WD Black is the fastest HDD on the block again - but for a huge price premium for a performance difference which pales in comparison with SSDs. Go for the 'Cuda 3 TB if you don't trust those Toshibas.

 

So i would rather choose a faster HDD rather than an SSD that will eventually break.

Won't an HDD break eventually, too? Are you running some super write intensive server workload? If not: never mind the write endurance. And you don't need the absolute fastest SSD either, as e.g. the 840 Evo is significantly cheaper than the Pro and does really well for desktop workloads.

 

Personally I'm very happy running a 3 TB 'Cuda (7.2k rpm) with an Agility 3 60 GB as cache drive using Intel SRT. Both drives have been good value nad most of the time the combined performance far exceeds a WD Black. Nowadays I'd get the 120 GB 840 Evo, use 60 GB for the OS partition and 60 GB as cache.

 

MrS


#13 MRFS

MRFS

    Member

  • Member
  • 190 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:34 AM

One of the things we have consciously done with Windows C: partitions

hosted by one or more SSDs is to do some modest file management

so as to minimize WRITEs to that C: partition.

 

I'm not talking about an extremely exhaustive and expert-level "tweaking"

but something much more modest and easily understood e.g.

 

( a ) move the swap file pagefile.sys to a short-stroked partition

on a fast HDD, and use the Contig freeware to guarantee that

pagefile.sys is perfectly contiguous:  this will accelerate swapping

I/O and offload C: of all those WRITEs;  you may occasionally

notice a short "lag" when Windows needs to swap large

programs in or out, but this is a small price to pay for the

benefits derived from much less Nand Flash wear;

 

( b ) move all browser caches either to a ramdisk,

or to a secondary HDD, or RAID-0 array of fast HDDs:

this again will offload C: of all those WRITEs;

 

( c ) shrink C: to a size large enough to store your OS

and all additional software, but get in the habit of

storing all user data files on different drive letters:

this will keep the OS and your databases separated,

and in the long run your drive images of C: will

be much smaller and much more manageable

(i.e. easily copied to redundant archive partitions);

 

( d ) host C: with a RAID-0 array of fast SSDs:

this will spread the WRITE workload in direct proportion

to the number of array members i.e.

each member sees 50% of workload in a 2-member array,

each member sees 25% of workload in a 4-member array;

 

( e ) if you are worried about the lack of TRIM support

on your RAID-0 array, shop around for SSDs that

do superior background garbage collection withOUT TRIM

e.g. this website does a good job of measuring

deterioration "After 30 Min Idle" and before TRIM:

 

http://www.xbitlabs....nh_5.html#sect0

 

 

The obvious key to longer WRITE endurance of

Nand Flash SSDs is to realize that WRITEs cause wear,

so minimize WRITEs whenever possible, particularly

on your C: system partition where essential software resides.

 

 

My 2 cents, FWIW.  Hope this helps.


#14 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 742 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 09:09 AM

I'm taking a completely different approach to SSDs: unless you've got a very write-heavy workload don't mind the write cycles. Don't overspend on the SSD (current sweet spot for me: 120 GB for 80-90€) and place large files elsewhere. If it's a modern drive which is not being completely filled the write cycles won't be a problem for many years. At that point the future solutions will probably be that much better that you won't care much about the old drive any more.

 

This is certainly much more economical than buying 2 or more drives for Raid 0 just to get higher write endurance. Consider what new drive 90, 180 or 270€ will get you in a few years, if you really went through those write cycles before any other reason made the drive unusable!

 

MrS


#15 MRFS

MRFS

    Member

  • Member
  • 190 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 01:47 PM

Our RAID-0 arrays are not designed ONLY to reduce WRITE cycles:

 

with a 6G MAX HEADROOM on all SATA cables, which translates

to 600 MB/second @ 10 bits per byte, we routinely see >900 MB/second

on PCIe 1.0 chipsets, and >1,800 MB/second on PCIe 2.0 chipsets.

 

The extra speed helps us in lots of situations, e.g. updating a large

HTML database with XCOPY, launching programs, CHKDSK,

creating drive images, etc. etc.

 

Moreover, another (not obvious) reason for our RAID research

is to support a utility patent pending at the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office in Washington, D.C.

 

The difference in speed with a RAID-0 array of 6G SSDs

is quite delightful.

 

I realize that some consumers may not benefit from the extra speed,

but in our situation the extra speed makes us that much more

productive.

 

Here's one way of looking at the extra speed:

 

Have you ever waited 2 or 3 seconds for a program to launch?

That's totally DEAD time -- waiting for the program to begin

and not doing anything else during that wait time.

 

if you shave only 1.5 seconds off every minute of

every working day, then:

 

FTE = 50 weeks @ 40 hours = 2,000 hours @ 60 minutes  =  120,000 minutes per year

 

120,000 @ 1.5  =  180,000 seconds saved per year

 

180,000 / 3,600  =  50 human hours saved per year (that's more than one 40-hour week!)

 

100 people (mid-sized professional organization) @ 50 hours  =  5,000 human hours / year

 

5,000 / 2,000  =  2.5 FTE (two and one-half person years of labor)

 

 

Conclusion:  shaving an average of 1.5 seconds from every minute of work,

in an organization of 100 professionals (whose time is valuable),

saves 2.5 Full Time Equivalents ("FTE") per year.  That's the equivalent of

2 1/2 workers each working a full year at no additional labor cost for those 2 1/2 workers!

 

Now, compare the cost of 50 person-hours v. the cost of a RAID-0 array of 2x or 4x SSDs:

 

When you fully load the hourly rate of professionals, i.e. with administrative overhead,

you're doing OK to assume at least $100 per hour x 50 hours = $5,000.

 

Even merely $50 per hour (fully loaded w/ overhead) x 50 hours = $2,500.

 

HOW MUCH DID THAT RAID-0 ARRAY COST??  :)


#16 Vampire

Vampire

    Member

  • Member
  • 36 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:11 PM

I also need storage space. So SSD is a no-no for me. Just building a new computer.

I am just curios how that Toshiba behaves vs the WD Black & the deskstar.

 

The new WD black 3TB is 61% more expensive than Toshiba 3TB.

 

Basically that toshiba is the cheepest 3TB on the market.


#17 MRFS

MRFS

    Member

  • Member
  • 190 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:59 PM

>  I am just curious how that Toshiba behaves vs the WD Black & the deskstar.

 

 

See post #4 above, for one ATTO measurement on a short-stroked 50GB primary partition,

controlled by a RocketRAID 2720SGL RAID controller installed in the x16 PCIe 1.0 expansion

slot on a budget ASRock G41M-S3 micro ATX motherboard.

 

RESULT:  Very tight range between 200 and 205 MB/second in the latter ATTO measurement

(see above).

 

 

We also tried that Toshiba 3TB in a 3G SATA-II port integrated on that motherboard,

and the MAX we observed was around 192 MB/second.

 

Both tests were done with Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit on a standard GPT volume.

 

 

If one were satisfied with a RAID-0 array booting from such a 6G RAID controller,

it is quite possible to achieve around 400 MB/second (+/-) with 2 of those Toshiba 3TB HDDs

configured in a RAID-0 array, particularly when testing that array with a short-stroked

primary partition e.g. for the OS.

 

That's about what one could expect from a RAID-0 array with 2 x WDC Velociraptors,

which also average around 200 MB/second on a 6G controller.

 

Even if one were limited to a chipset with 3G SATA ports,

2 x ~192 = ~384 MB/second, which is still very good performance

from rotating HDDs.

 

 

Just remember that some systems may require a UEFI to boot from a GPT volume.


#18 jtsn

jtsn

    Member

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:30 AM

The drive is no longer rebadged hitachi. From December 2012 it is manufactured in China.

 

My oldest Hitachi desktop hard drive was made in 2009. And it was made in China, just like every other Hitachi drive I own.

 

I like these drives. Instead of having to choose between WD Black, Blue, Red, Yellow, Green, Orange, Pink with different price premiums for different "uses", I rather like to have HDDs, which work well in all scenarios. I saves a lot of money, if I'm able to change the use case later (like moving system drives to NAS use and degrading them to external backup drives later).

 

So I need energy-efficent drives with reasonable performance and good acoustics, which don't choke at 24/7 operation and vibration. If Toshiba is still able to deliver that package with that Hitachi factory, I'm going to buy their drives. Warranty is not that important, the actual usability of the HDD is.


Edited by jtsn, 09 January 2014 - 03:32 AM.

#19 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,566 posts

Posted 09 January 2014 - 11:11 PM

SilentPCReview does the most reliable acoustic and vibration I am aware of for reviews... problem is they don't review all that many drives. Hopefully someone will send them a Toshiba?


#20 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 742 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 10:52 AM

MRFS, in principle I agree with the argument "spend more on hardware to be more productive" for a net win. That's why I'm equipping all of our new or refurbished boxes with SSDs. However, the benefit obviously depends on how intense the workloads are. In research at university we're usually more limited by thinking rather than the storage subsystem speed (if it's already a decent single SSD). Of course there are also computationally intense tasks - that's what our simulation machines are for. Anyway, if your workloads are often more I/O intense, then by all means go for the Raid 0 :)

 

I'm still not convinced it's the best solution for general office productivity. The reason is diminishing returns regarding I/O performance. Dropping transfer times from whatever into the single-digit second range is of obvious benefit. But when going from 2s to 1s I question people's ability to actually use that time for anything productive. It surely depends on how much you're limited by "thinking about what to do next" versus "hammering out standard procedures".

 

And then there's the OS file cache and yourself simply leaving your usually needed programs open, which both mitigate the benefit from even faster storage further. Faster storage also makes CPU bottlenecks more pronounced for further diminishing returns.

 

Disclaimer: I have never worked with a storage system faster than a single high end SATA3 SSD.

 

MrS


#21 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 742 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 11:05 AM

The new WD black 3TB is 61% more expensive than Toshiba 3TB.

Unless your storage system performance is directly related to your income (file servers etc.) then I'd say this price increase is absolutely not worth it. Sure, the WD is faster and at 10% higher price might get the nod - but 60% is far too much for little benefit. For the same price you could get 2 2TB Toshiba or Seagate in Raid 0.

 

And the last time I looked the Seagate SSHD was cheaper than the WD Black. Performance-wise they trade blows (Seagate wins handily from cache, WD wins a bit uncached). Drawback: only available up to 2 TB with 7.2k rpm, whereas the 4 TB model is 5.9k rpm. Still, 2 x 2 TB Seagate SSHD are cheaper than a single 4 TB WD Black in Germany!

 

MrS


#22 MRFS

MRFS

    Member

  • Member
  • 190 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 03:05 PM

>  I have never worked with a storage system faster than a single high end SATA3 SSD.

 

You should download the free trial version of RamDisk Plus,

and move all of your browser caches to that ramdisk:

 

http://superspeed.co...top/ramdisk.php

 

 

Michael Horniak in their Tech Support Department

will be happy to help you (he's a great guy too:

I know this from experience).

 

http://supremelaw.or...Plus.Review.pdf

 

 

Disclaimer:  I'm assuming that you and your co-workers do use web browsers  :-)

 

 

"I am told that experience is a great teacher," whispered the church mouse.

"How much do we pay those teachers, then?" asked the Choir Master.


#23 MRFS

MRFS

    Member

  • Member
  • 190 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 03:20 PM

>  Unless your storage system performance is directly related to your income (file servers etc.) then

>  I'd say this price increase is absolutely not worth it.

 

You might change your mind if you compute retail price per warranty year.

 

The Toshiba 3TB we bought recently came with 2-year factory warranty:

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822149408

 

$120 / 2  =  $60 per warranty year

 

 

Western Digital WD3001FAEX  (5-year factory warranty)
 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822236424

 

$200 / 5  =  $40 per warranty year

 

 

Western Digital WD3003FZEX  (5-year factory warranty)

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822236623

 

$220 / 5  =  $44 per warranty year
 

 

 

Having 3 extra years of factory warranty could be

extremely important to some organizations,

given their current purchasing policies.

 

 

UPDATE:  I just noticed that Newegg offers a 3-year extended replacement plan

on that Toshiba 3TB:

 

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822149408

 

cf. "Protect Your Investment!"

 

$120 + $24 = $144 / (2 + 3)  =  $28.8 per warranty period  <---- THE WINNER ON THIS MEASURE!


Edited by MRFS, 11 January 2014 - 03:33 PM.

#24 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,298 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 08:21 PM

To be fair though, most drives won't fail within the warranty period, not sure that's the best decision making metric.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#25 jtsn

jtsn

    Member

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 12 January 2014 - 01:38 AM


To be fair though, most drives won't fail within the warranty period, not sure that's the best decision making metric.

 

For my buying decisions warranty duration is completely irrelevant. Hard drive failures are quite seldom and the RMA process is cumbersome and time-consuming, so I usually avoid it. I'm perfectly fine with a lower price for a shorter warranty period that covers early failures. Getting back a used drive (repaired/refurbished) after five years is worthless for me.

 

Lately I saved up to 30 % on 2.5 in drives by getting externals without any manufacturer's warranty (yes, they are cheaper than bare internal drives over here). Even if one in five fail after six months, I still made a good deal...


Edited by jtsn, 12 January 2014 - 01:44 AM.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users