Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Argentina
    Age
    41
    Posts
    385

    Difference in performance between WD2002FYPS and WD1001FALS

    I saw the review here at PC Perspective http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=703&type=expert but sadly they don't compare with a 1 TB Black. Did someone has one of this drives to compare against the black 1tb? I want to buy bigger and faster driver, or at least the same performance, so I was looking and there is no version of 2 TB Black, and the green is really slow. So, the only avaible option is the RE4-GP. I don't want to loose much performance, so I want to know if it is worthy the upgrade or just wait when WD release a 2 tb black. Thanks.
    EVGA X58 Classified E759 Limited Edition, Intel Core i7 Extreme 975@ 3,45 Ghz (133x26), 12 GB Mushkin Red line DDR3 1600 6-7-6-18, 4 x RAID 0 Intel X-25M G2 160 GB, 4 x Hitachi 3TB 7K3000, Lian Li EX-34B HDD Kit, LCD DELL 2408WFP 24" WIDE, SLI 2 x GTX 480, Adaptec 5405Z, Logitech MX 3100, Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme, PC Power & Cooling 1200 W ESA, Pioneer 216D DVD-RW SATA, Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty Professional, Lian Li V2000B Plus II, HP 990 cxi, UPS Smart APC SUA 2200I, Creative Gigaworks S750, Xtrac Pro HS, Cisco 677 ADSL modem, Router Draytek Vigor 2920n.

  2. #2
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    65

    Re: Difference in performance between WD2002FYPS and WD1001FALS

    A 1TB black will probably perform just under a 2TB RE4-GP. I suspect WD is holding off on a 2TB black because of just how well the RE4-GP performs.

    I would not hesitate to run an OS from a Caviar Green. The large buffer bring effective seek times down and the high platter density keeps sequential throughput up.
    Allyn Malventano, CTNC, USN
    PCPer Storage Editor

  3. #3
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,072

    Re: Difference in performance between WD2002FYPS and WD1001FALS

    How do the WD black vs. Green drives perform? I'm thinking of replacing my 2ndary IDE Seagate 7200 drive (320g) with something bigger. It holds most of my downloads and TV rips.

    For reference, I own a WD 74gig Raptor 10k and 150gig Raptor 10k.
    AMD R7 1700x. MSI B350 Tomahawk. 2x8gb Corsair vengeance LPX. Coolermaster Hyper 212 evo. Corsair Carbide 200R. EVGA GTX 970.

  4. #4
    Joined
    Jun 2002
    Location
    catford south london
    Posts
    8,208

    Re: Difference in performance between WD2002FYPS and WD1001FALS

    the green is about power saving

    it spins slower and hence by defenition is slower

    but for storage does speed matter that much
    P5Q Deluxe
    Intel QX 6700
    8 GB OCZ
    60 GB Vertex drive
    ATI 5850
    SILENCER 610 WATT





  5. #5
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Age
    71
    Posts
    64,554

    Re: Difference in performance between WD2002FYPS and WD1001FALS

    I have to agree with wonkanoby. The "Green" line is all about power saving at the expense of performance. Thus it is much better suited for storage than as an O/S drive. Why? Because its spindle speed varies, most of the time below 7200 rpm. Spindle speed "latency, normal = 4.2 ms at 7200" is one of the two primary factors of access time, which will therefore also be slower than normal for a 7200 rpm drive. The other primary factor is seek time, which is ONLY the time it takes the heads to move between two randomly selected tracks on a drive. Spindle speed has no part in that. But, the end result will be slower than normal access time, simply because, the root of access time is seek time + latency.

    Also slower STR unless the data is being read from the cache, which of course means it probably isn't, not on a storage only drive. It must also be noted that the Black editions have quicker than average seek and access time for 7200 rpm drives. A full 2ms minimum advantage over any others. Most are in the 13.5 ms area (and slower). Black editions are also likely going to have faster overall STR profiles than Green models.

    Contrary to what anyone believes, caching cannot and will not compensate for any/all of that, but it can and often does soften the effect of the design compromises made during a drive's designing, especially one like a green model.

    HD caching is the single most classified/propriatary/secretive, never discussed aspects of HD design and is IN FACT responsible for nearly ALL of the differences in performance "personalities" if you will, noted in HD reviews are due to the cache, specifically the caching algo (resides in the drive's firmware). A wise reader accounts for the positional performance aspects separately, added in after the contribution of the drive's personality profile has been established. THEN the reader decides if the drive is a decent choice for the intended use. In this case, storage is the most logical use for a WD Green. Hell, it'll even get its chances to go all the way to sleep now and then when allowed in windoze.

  6. #6
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,072

    Re: Difference in performance between WD2002FYPS and WD1001FALS

    Would you consider the Green drives suitable for TV capture? I need a fairly consistent transfer rate to record my COlbert Report without hiccups.
    AMD R7 1700x. MSI B350 Tomahawk. 2x8gb Corsair vengeance LPX. Coolermaster Hyper 212 evo. Corsair Carbide 200R. EVGA GTX 970.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    65

    Re: Difference in performance between WD2002FYPS and WD1001FALS

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_raider View Post
    Would you consider the Green drives suitable for TV capture? I need a fairly consistent transfer rate to record my COlbert Report without hiccups.
    Capture is probably the best application for Green drives, especially when they are placed in low ventilation environments like a TIVO.
    Allyn Malventano, CTNC, USN
    PCPer Storage Editor

  8. #8
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,072

    Re: Difference in performance between WD2002FYPS and WD1001FALS

    thank you good sir

    * runs off and credit card goes swoosh *
    AMD R7 1700x. MSI B350 Tomahawk. 2x8gb Corsair vengeance LPX. Coolermaster Hyper 212 evo. Corsair Carbide 200R. EVGA GTX 970.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •