WD green vs black?

Radiation

Radiation

Radiation

Soldato
Joined
12 Oct 2003
Posts
4,027
I remember when it was a choice between a normal 7200 drive and an SE version which had a bit more cache, now it seems we have a choice between green (slow & cheap?) and black (normal & expensive?) but why is this?

If green is standard now, why the slowness for the sake of a bit of power saved and whats up with the extra cost of a black one? something seems wrong here as i can't imagine the components inside are all that different to make up the extra cost. :confused:
 
Green drives are cheaper and use less power - perfect for storage drives.

Black drives are faster but more expensive - useful for OS or games, although personally I'd use an SSD for this.
 
They're all quiet, I have WD black green and blue in my PC and they're all fast and quiet. The Blue is more audible during read/write but ambience is the same between them.
 
It's down to market segmenting, a certain audience prefers ultra quietness and low power consumption, others top performance, others a blend.

In fact I'm pretty sure the hardware in all three WD lineups are identical, it's just the firmware tweaks that change from series to series, oh and the cover sticker.

If it was me I would just go with the Black series through and through, if I want it to be ultra quiet then I can change AAM settings myself.
 
In everyday use, Green isn't "slow". In fact my sole drive is a 1TB Green.

Since I use S3 sleep instead of shutting down (hybrid sleep disabled), booting up and shutting down is almost instant.

And the time it takes for a game to load is reasonable. Do we really need everything to be instant?

Oh and mine's inaudible ;)
 
EggCustard said:
It's down to market segmenting, a certain audience prefers ultra quietness and low power consumption, others top performance, others a blend.

In fact I'm pretty sure the hardware in all three WD lineups are identical, it's just the firmware tweaks that change from series to series, oh and the cover sticker.
Click to expand...

If that's true then doesn't anyone else have a problem with them selling the same hardware for twice as much just to get what was once considered standard performance?

Artificial limitations like this are wrong, if they can sell the green drives for what they do and the hardware is identical then they should sell the black one for the same or simply give the option to have energy saving or standard with a jumper setting.

Anyway with that out of the way im considering a budget drive for storage, its between Samsung and WD, which would be the best 2TB drive?
 
I once heard a saying and I tend to think it's spot on, namely "business has no sweethearts". They're all in the game to make money, as far as I know every industry does it, anything that allows attracting a larger market share and revenue.

As for Samsung Vs WD. To be honest they're very close but I do feel a lot of people are keen on Samsung HDD's. I personally have a F3 and it's dead quiet while HDTach's read rate is 121.3MB/s. This is with the 500GB platters, I assume the F4 is even faster.
 
EggCustard said:
I once heard a saying and I tend to think it's spot on, namely "business has no sweethearts". They're all in the game to make money, as far as I know every industry does it, anything that allows attracting a larger market share and revenue.

As for Samsung Vs WD. To be honest they're very close but I do feel a lot of people are keen on Samsung HDD's. I personally have a F3 and it's dead quiet while HDTach's read rate is 121.3MB/s. This is with the 500GB platters, I assume the F4 is even faster.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i've always bought WD as they've been good for years but i think it might be a time to try someone else.
 
I have a Cav Black and a 1TB Samsung F3. The black is definitely quieter and quicker... without a doubt.

I had the black by itself for a while before adding the F3 and was dissapointed at how noisey it was by comparison. Cheap though as a storage drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom