WD Caviar Black slower than Green

[jano152]

A few months ago I bought a WD Caviar Black 1TB HDD (WD1003FZEX) and did a benchmark right after I installed it into my PC. I knew that this model is infamous for its slow access time which didn't surprise me. But the surprise came just recently when I bought the second HDD - Caviar Green 3TB (WD30EZRX) and benchmarked it. It should be slower budget disk but the test results were better then the results from the Black one. Both are connected through SATA3 and I tested them when they were freshly formatted and empty.

How is this possible? Is my Black so slow or my Green so fast? Most surprising is the Green one's access time which is far better than 7200rpm Black's.

Benchmarks results:

 

[OriginalCadaver]

Your access time is 4 ms higher for the black, but the Black's average transfer rate is 30+ MB/sec higher.

 

[jano152]

Yes, you're right about the average transfer rate but what about the burst rate? Which is much better in the Green's results. Also I knew that 1003FZEX has slower access time compared to an older Black drives but I didn't expect it to be so massively outperformed by a cheaper and slower 5400rpm Green drive.

 

[Boogieman_WD]

Hey jano152. I'm sorry to hear you're having issues with the drive. It looks to me like the average transfer rate of the WD Black is higher than the WD Green. You could try the drives with another computer to see if they show the same results or at least a different SATA connection and test them again. I'd also suggest that you download DLG (Data Lifeguard Diagnostic) and run both tests (Quick and Extended) on the WD Black drive to see if something alarming pops-up: DLG

Hope that helps.
Boogieman_WD

 

[OriginalCadaver]

The burst rate really isn't something I would fret over, and it will increase if you have write-back cache enabled. The access time is a little slower, but it falls in line with all of the benchmarks that I've seen.

142 MB/sec v 119 MB/sec is a pretty significant increase in your average transfer rate and the difference in the access time is 4 thousandths of a second.

 

[jano152]

I tried DLG and it showed everything ok in SMART and quick test as passed. I don't think it's any kind of malfunction. Maybe just 1003FZEX drives are worse than I thought.

 

[Boogieman_WD]

@OriginalCadaver made a pretty good point there. As for the the WD Black drives, when saying "performance drive" it's not meant just the transfer rate and the access time. The HDD is designed with a lot of features to enhance its performance when it comes to data management, which are not supported by the WD Green drive, which is designed to be used mainly as a secondary storage HDD. You can take a look at all of them plus the specs here: WD Black

 

[jano152]

I see, so it's ok after all I suppose. I was just surprised by the recent Green's results but you made a good point with the better tranfer rate and other features that doesn't show in simple benchmark. Thanks for your answers!

 

[Boogieman_WD]

You're welcome. I'm glad if I was able to help you in any way. I wish your new drives a long and happy life. 😀

PS: Don't hesitate to ask if you have any further questions.

 

[OriginalCadaver]

Make sure to register your drives on WD's web site. They have a good RMA policy if you have any failures. good luck!

 

[jano152]

Thanks