That review seems very strange: in 4k random read/write 7.2k rpm HDDs score in the range of 1 - 2 MB/s, translating into about 75 - 150 IOps. Either they got the unit of their scores screwed up or the test mode - neither of which is very reassuring.
And they may say that "the Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 3TB is faster in every benchmark".. except in the PcMark 7 score they posted themselves (your link). Seriously?
Looking at the numbers myself I'd first dismiss anything relying only on STR (sustained transfer rate), because once you're trasnferring at > 100 MB/s in a desktop environment your jobs is likely finished soon anyway, no matter if it's 150, 180 or 200 MB/s. More STR is nice, but doesn't really change the subjective performance unless the difference is massive. What counts is when random transfers are thrown into the mix and the HDD comes to a crawl - that's when you're sitting there, thinking "oh boy, why didn't I buy an SSD?!" That's where the WD Black shines compared to other HDDs (the very good access time, which always comes at the price of higher access noise), but falls behind SSDs far more than in STR limited scenarios. And that's what hardware.info didn't really test, hence the excellent performance of the Toshiba and Seagate with their STR advantage due to their 1 TB platters.
Their PCMark scores are probably the most useful of the bunch, and here I'd say those 3 drives perform about equal: the difference is less than 5%! PcMark "still" relies rather heavily on STR - but in this case it's a god thing, as it tries to resemble a typical desktop workload and you shouldn't hit your HDD with much more random requests anyway. If you need to, you'Ve hopefully already got some SSD solution. And that's why I think the WD Black is poor value, despite its good performance.