Western Digital WD Blue WD10EZEX 64MB cache

Recommended Posts

My current Win 7 64-bit PC has C: 180GB SSD & D: 128GB SSD, So I'm looking at adding a storage E: drive

Want the storage drive to have a low failure rate, SATA-6.0 and prefer decent performance

I'm trying decide between a low cost (any brand) 2TB hard drive ($100-$110) and the WD10EZEX 1.0TB 64mb cache hard drive ($70).

Anyone heard anything good or bad about the WD10EZEX hard drive?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone heard anything good or bad about the WD10EZEX hard drive?

I've seen a number of HDTune screen captures:

Fast read/write speeds (180Mbytes per second peak, or close).

Seek times are moderately slow, but not horrible. The drive is designed, it appears, to be quiet instead of blazing fast in seeks.

I have two on their way, should be a few days.

2 year warranty (which is better than the 1 year I'm seeing elsewhere), but not the Black's 5 year - yet at this price difference, that might be good.

Blacks have better seek, but lower raw read/write speed.

It's a "new" design for them, it seems - I find no other 1Tb single platter drives in their current line.

Other benchmarks suggest that the seek time speed is generally compensated by the fast read/write speeds overall.

Probably better for large files formatted with big allocation blocks.

Not the absolute best OS drive, but reasonable if you're able to run write cache on (battery backup a must there).

This is an AF drive. You'll need Windows 7 (which you stated), or linux/MAC - older XP or other OS would require software for partitioning correctly.

I'll know more when I observe during use in a few days.

Most advise that green 2TB drives have higher return/failure rates than "standard" 7200 RPM drives, despite the notion that lower power ought to be more reliable, it isn't.

7200 RPM 2TB drives may be better, and I suppose there's a 3TB blue either soon or that I've not observed at 7200 based on this blue's design.

If your storage isn't a million small files ( 100K or less ), this drive may be a great choice at this price point.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ended up ordering the drive from Newegg on Sunday night.

I got mine on Wednesday, got them rolling by late night.

Thursday moving in - it's like setting up a new apartment.

They are about what I expected.

The raw read speed is very good, the overall "feel" of my system is very similar to the F3 Samsung 1Tbyte drive they've replaced.

My Samsung was a great drive while it lasted. It started developing bad sectors after about 16 months. I could tell the drive was struggling, speed tests showed that over the entire drive there were pockets dropping to about 20 Mbytes per second, indicating retry against CRC read errors over the entire drive. I think I got it out of the system just in time.

I run several virtual machines in various operating systems, different versions of Windows and Linux for evaluation and development.

Operations are similar in performance on the WD's as on the Samsung when it was new. Suspend is a good example. In my older WD 640 (a good old drive) suspending a VM with 2Gbyte RAM configuration takes perhaps 60 seconds. On the Samsung, that was about 15 before it starting failing. On these drives it's about 11 or 12 seconds. Doing this amounts to writing a 2Gbyte file. Launching, compiling and general usage is quite good - whatever the lower scores on seek times may mean, the drive's raw speed does fine to compensate overall.

They are NOT as good at handling lots of small files. While moving my material into the drives it was slightly apparent, but not obvious. Tests using HDTach and similar tools do show the average access is about 20 ms (it was 14 on the Samsung).

Video editing / conversion is noticeably faster - about 8% to 12%.

I decided to partition the drives roughly in half. One drive is 400/600 - the 400 is more heavily used, the 600 stores less often accessed material. This way the access performance impact is limited, and I don't need a single 1Tbyte volume, I need about 150 Gbytes at a time maximum for work space. The other WD is setup as 250/250/500. The first two partitions are different workhorse volumes, the latter a storage of backup RAR's (VM backups for example).

The speed test shows sustained 150Mbyte to 180Mbyte / second continues well beyond the first half of the drive. The falloff begins somewhere at the 600Mbyte point and degrades to just under 100Mbytes / second at the tail end.

Entirely satisfactory, especially for the price.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Entirely satisfactory, especially for the price.

Wouldn't the Seagate ST1000DM003 (1 TB/platter) have been a better option: slightly faster sequential reads (~160 MB/s avg vs. ~145 MB/s) and much faster seeks (~14.5 ms vs. ~20.5 ms)? And it's slightly cheaper, too!

Unless you prefer silence to performance...

Edited by ppinto

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now