VRaptor, WD Black 2Tb, Samsung F3. The performance numbers are in!

Stonedofmoo

Stonedofmoo

Stonedofmoo

Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
6,242
Location
Portsmouth
Tomshardware has reviewed the new Samsung F3, WD Black and WD RE4 drives with 500Gb platters.

Of those the Black is easily the desktop choice. That review is here: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2tb-hdd-7200,review-31718.html

Tomshardware updates it's charts with it's performance numbers, so for those that ask if it's worth getting a VRator or Samsung F3, or WD Black this will be of interest.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/chart...tml?prod[2770]=on&prod[2772]=on&prod[2367]=on

The bottom line for me is WD Black is now the fastest desktop drive at everything but IO performance and quite a lot faster than the Samsung F3. The VRaptors are still quite a lot faster in IO benchmarks but this isn't all that important for a desktop PC. WD Black 2Tb looks like the way to go for now unless you want RAID in which case get the RE4 which is awesome but damn expensive. :cool:
 
Why would you get a 2TB drive for performance in your home pc?

If anything, a drive of that size will be used to store data and anyone with a brain will know that a 5400rpm drive will be cooler, cheaper and more than up to the jobby.
 
Hotwired said:
Right.

So they line up two WD 2TB drives against a Samsung 500GB drive.

Well what the devil does that mean.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking when I was reading this review! What the hell was the point of it all apart from perhaps maybe trying to have a bias against the Samsung? This is one of the worst comparision reviews, and to be honest, not the only dissapointing review by Tom's Hardware.
 
The 500GB F3 would perform the same as a 2TB one.

Interesting results. Same throughput but the 500GB/platter WD's have much higher IOPS. Even if the comment saying it's bias the the F3's perform better is false I'd still take them if I was still buying 7200rpm disks (now I only get SDD or 5400rpm). Even if WD release smaller Blacks they will cost a fortune, remember the F1 pricing vs. Blacks? WD were forced to make enormous cuts.
I think the power/noise results are a bit unfair as the F3 is just one platter whereas the 2TB WD's have four.
 
I've ordered a F3 1TB to go alongside my WD Caviar Black 1TB.

I'll initially use it to hold data while I format the WD drive to the partitions I failed to put in the first time but perhaps I can do a bit of comparing at the same time.


No bias here, buying from both camps :)
 
Hotwired said:
I've ordered a F3 1TB to go alongside my WD Caviar Black 1TB.

I'll initially use it to hold data while I format the WD drive to the partitions I failed to put in the first time but perhaps I can do a bit of comparing at the same time.


No bias here, buying from both camps :)
Click to expand...

Only the 2TB Black has the 500GB platters, so it's not really worth bothering (except for your own interest though there are results enough around the web already).
 
I have 2 250GB drives in my comp, one Samsung one WD and my Samsung is noticeably faster, even the benchmarks say so!



Like others I'm still waiting for Samsung to enter the 2TB+ market!!
 
Ah well, the 2TB WD drive is... 60% more than buying two 1TB drives so... I think I'll just sit tight with what I have.

I'll have another think about it if I get round to filling said 2TB of storage :)
 
Hotwired said:
Ah well, the 2TB WD drive is... 60% more than buying two 1TB drives so... I think I'll just sit tight with what I have.

I'll have another think about it if I get round to filling said 2TB of storage :)
Click to expand...

Have you thought about getting a 1.5TB F2? The F3 is quicker than your Black but not so much that you'd really notice, and if it's just storage you're after then the EcoGreens are a bargain.
 
AbsenceJam said:
Have you thought about getting a 1.5TB F2? The F3 is quicker than your Black but not so much that you'd really notice, and if it's just storage you're after then the EcoGreens are a bargain.
Click to expand...

Yer those benchmarks are ******** tbh.
Although i do agree the access times aren't on par :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom