Vampire

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

Recommended Posts

Test results: HD Tune Read

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/3/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-hd-tune-read

HDTune - Benchmark - Read - Average

Toshiba speed same as WD.

HDTune - Benchmark - Read - Access Time

12.3 ms for WD, 15.6 ms for Toshiba

Test results: HD Tune Write

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/4/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-hd-tune-write

HDTune - Benchmark - Write - Average

WD same as Toshiba.

HDTune - Benchmark - Write - Access Time

11.2 ms for WD, 14 ms for Toshiba

Test results: Atto Random Read

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/5/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-atto-random-read

Atto - Read - QD 4 - 4 kB - Average speed

142.7 MB for WD, 115,7 MB for Toshiba

Atto - Read - QD 4 - 1 MB - Average speed

WD same as Toshiba.

Test results: Atto Random Write

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/6/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-atto-random-write

Atto - Write - QD 4 - 4 kB - Average speed

129.6 MB for WD, 91 MB for Toshiba, both not good, but it's random write.

Atto - Write - QD 4 - 1 MB - Average speed

Toshiba 189,5 MB, WD 142,3 MB. Much better the Toshiba it seems.

Test results: PCMark7

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/7/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-resultsnpcmark7

PCMark 7 - Storage Total score

Toshiba > WD

Won is almost all subscores :

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/8/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-resultsnpcmark7-subscores

Test results: PCMark8

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/9/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-test-results-pcmark8

Another model was tested there.

Energy level

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/11/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-energy-consumption

Noise production

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/12/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-noise-production

Noise (idle)

WD 33.1 dB, Toshiba 33.6 dB

Noise (active)

WD 40.6 dB, Toshiba 34.4 dB (too loud the WD. The 1TB toshiba one of the less noisy drives)

************************************************************

Very different results and conclusions from Storage Review. Are we talking about same model here, the new black ?

They say the Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 3TB is faster in every benchmark.

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5020/13/western-digital-caviar-black-v2-4tb-wd4003fzex-review-faster-black-hard-drive-conclusion

What do you say Brian ?

Edited by Vampire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> the RMA process is cumbersome and time-consuming

That has NOT been my experience with WDC:

they do require that any given drive be registered first.

Assuming that 30-second hurdle does not cut into your lunch hour too much,

WDC has promptly replaced the few failed drives for which we've

requested an RMA from that company.

> Getting back a used drive (repaired/refurbished) after five years is worthless for me.

First of all, the way you phrased that sentence, it sounds like a straw man:

I'm not aware of any HDD warranties longer than 5 years, therefore

if a HDD with a 5-year warranty fails AFTER 5 years, it's not eligible for replacement

so there won't be ANY used / replacement drive under those assumptions.

Statistically, rotating HDDs will accumulate more wear e.g. on bearings and

servo mechanisms, the longer they operate, and that means the failure

rate in any given 12-month period increases with time.

Let's say a HDD with 5-year warranty fails in year 4, and let's say the replacement has

a probability of operating normally for another 3 years e.g. if it's a "refurb".

Once again, "statistically speaking" one can expect 6 years of normal operation,

taking the 2 x HDDs together (3 + 3). If the first HDD fails in year 5 and the replacement

operates for 2 years, one can still expect 6 years of normal operation (4 + 2)

or 7 years of normal operation if the replacement operates for 3 years (4 + 3).

From my experience with WDC, the length of their warranty on any given model

also says a lot about the relative quality of that model and its ability to operate 24/7 or not.

Another factor to consider is deployment policy: the average workload requested

of older drives could be reduced by means of management policies that shift

those older drives into low-activity duty e.g. occasional archiving of backups,

drive images and such.

For enthusiasts who enjoy purchasing the latest hardware quite often,

e.g. every 3 years (or less), none of the above may be of any value to them

because of their purchasing patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. There are a few more things about "deployment policy"

that I'd like to throw into this mix:

( a ) a short-stroked primary partition is now well documented to

produce superior performance, chiefly because it minimizes

armature movements and the outermost tracks store more data,

given a constant linear recording density;

( b ) similarly, when writing a drive image of the C: system partition,

we strongly recommend that the output file be written to a

second physical HDD, in order to minimize armature thrashing

that will occur if the output file is written to the same physical HDD;

( c ) we often begin a routine backup by using the "/L" command line

option with XCOPY: "Displays files that would be copied":

this mode loads RAM with folder entries but without loading

file system buffers with the entire data files; then, by running

XCOPY again withOUT the "/L" command line option,

the file system searches the buffers for those folder entries

instead of reading them again from the drives; with over 100,000

files in a database that we keep updated, this sequence makes

a huge difference in overall elapsed time:

( d ) I remain totally convinced that a quality UPS + quality PSU

together provide quality input DC power to all peripherals,

and in the long run all peripherals benefit from that quality DC

input power.

Because the PCI bus is now obsolete for our purposes here,

we recently disassembled a workstation with Intel 875 chipset

after it had run almost flawlessly for 10 full YEARS,

and all of the HDDs in that workstation also worked fine

for 10 full YEARS without the need to replace any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> the RMA process is cumbersome and time-consuming

That has NOT been my experience with WDC:

This is not about WD. Every HDD vendor has strict packaging rules and requires sending in at my own cost. All that hassle for just getting a used drive with a unknown handling history. It's so much easier, to just go to the store and take a new HDD off the shelf. Or just order one from Amazon or even a used one from eBay. It's mainly a question of what your own time is worth to you. HDDs are not $1000 products anymore.

If I can choose between 2 and 5 years warranty and with the latter being more expensive, I will go for 2 years. All HDD failures I had happened in the 9 to 18 months range. Thanks to EU policy, as a consumer I can also hold the seller liable for that. He has to bear all costs and has to provide me with a NEW drive or refund me. And for the replacement drive the 2 years liability period starts from the beginning again.

These are way better conditions than any HDD manufacturer can offer me and they are in place by default for every consumer product just by law.

From my experience with WDC, the length of their warranty on any given model

also says a lot about the relative quality of that model and its ability to operate 24/7 or not.

I stay away from these drives for exactly this reason. A drive which is not able to operate 24/7 is defective by design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it like this: warrenties are like insurances. Statistically you'll pay a bit more than you get back. That's what the provider makes a living from. And you also buy the safety of being secure should "that event" hit you. Due to these reasons I only like insurances for cases where being hit by "that event" really hurts or threatens existance, like a liability insurance. Consequently I'm not buying more expensive HDDs for longer warrenties.

A drive which is not able to operate 24/7 is defective by design.

By the way.. I don't think there is such a thing like "HDDs not being able to run 24/7". I think this is primarily just there to scare us and make us buy more expensive HDDs and secondly to ease manufacturer specifications. Like for Seagate desktop HDDs: they are not saying the drives won't take 24/7, but rather that their specs assume 8h of usage per day. That's a very important difference, which most people overlook and is not something Seagate or WD will want to point out.

That is not say that there are no differences in HDD quality and longevity. What I'm saying is that for the HDD it really doesn't matter if it ran 8h a day for 3 days or 24h on 1 day. Thermal equilibrium is reached after ~15 min, instantaneously compared to the timescales we're talking about. And the spindle? Well, it's turning at 5 to 7k rounds per minute. What the hell should change after 24h that didn't already happen after 8h?

In the two cases I'm comparing the 24h HDD would actually have experienced less wear due to recieving only 1/3 the start-stop cycles per runtime. But of course after a certain time, e.g. 1 year, the 24/7 HDD has accumulated 3 times the overall runtime, which counterbalances the reduced number of start-stop cycles.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't WD going to have a Annul share holder report in February? I think that if a new drive is coming out then that might be the time in which they do it. They already lost a Quarter form a leaked Road map for the 5TB drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially, reliability testing is done assuming a particular usage scenario. So to "prove" a given design can handle 24/7, you use a different acceleration factor, test conditions, and quantity of drives you test. Most of us assume 24/7 is more strenuous on a drive than 8 hrs a day, but note that 24/7 usage will have much fewer start/stop cycles for the motor and actuator. It may nor may not be more strenuous. Specs are set based on what testing has been done. I mean, you can always extrapolate, but you do have to be careful with how you do that so as to ensure a reliable comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But are they going to release a desktop line, now that they announced fresh enterprice HDD and SSD lines ?

Thank you.

Edited by Vampire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the LaCie news it's pretty obvious that they'll offer a desktop 5TB. Toshiba has announced one too, so WG and HGST will probably have to follow suit. HGST's 6TB He drive probably won't go to the desktop, we'll see though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well. I will keep my eyes on this, since the Toshiba HDD are way cheeper than Seagate, WD or HGST.

A new 5 TB drive with decent performance should do well for a new PC.

Edited by Vampire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any rumbeling on the WD 5TB Red line? WD50EFRX. Sometime this year maybe? I am looking to pick up 3 5TB but if they are dealyed 6 months, i will just get 3 4TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know anything, but I'd just consider where WD is in relation to others that are already shipping 5TB and 6TB capacities. Just ask yourself how far behind could WD be given the near parity in mechanical innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seagate's Backup Plus 5TB units are evidently shipping... did I need to send my sample to SR for review? I don't mind if you guys shuck the drive to test directly as an internal, although considering the connectors are standard SATA you don't even need to shuck it... ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't yet have Seagate 5TB in...we do have x16 of the 6TB that review goes up today. I'll inquire again on 5TB to see what's up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seagate's Backup Plus 5TB units are evidently shipping... did I need to send my sample to SR for review? I don't mind if you guys shuck the drive to test directly as an internal, although considering the connectors are standard SATA you don't even need to shuck it... ^_^

We have one shipping to us today, problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sound like its time for another prize give away :lol:

We don't yet have Seagate 5TB in...we do have x16 of the 6TB that review goes up today. I'll inquire again on 5TB to see what's up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to get 2 x 3.5" drives to replace the current one for RAID-1 at home NAS. Was thinking about the Toshiba DT01ACA300 too.

Knowing that there's not much new in HDD these days, is it a good idea to wait for the next gen?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason to wait. I'm not sure I'd be buying Toshiba 3.5" though. I'd stick with the WD, HGST and Seagate offerings.

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