538°
EXPIRED
Western Digital Caviar Green Power 2TB 64MB Cache HDD SATAII - Novatech - £99.99
Western Digital Caviar Green Power 2TB 64MB Cache HDD SATAII - Novatech - £99.99

Western Digital Caviar Green Power 2TB 64MB Cache HDD SATAII - Novatech - £99.99

Buy forBuy forBuy for£99.99
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
1st deal, hope I did it right.
Did a search but nothing came up, apologise if a repost.


[Edit] Just to mention its 7200rpm.
[Edit] Just noticed theres a deal at SaverStore which is 1p cheaper but with no free delivery. So i guess this deal is for those who want to order online.

Key Features

Reduced power consumption - WD has reduced power consumption by up to 40 percent compared to standard desktop drives with the combination of WD's IntelliSeek, NoTouch, and IntelliPower technologies.

Helps enable eco-friendly PCs - WD Caviar Green drives yield an average drive power savings of 4-5 watts over standard desktop drives making it possible for our energy-conscious customers to build systems with higher capacities and the right balance of system performance, ensured reliability, and energy conservation.

Cool and quiet - WD GreenPower Technology yields lower operating temperatures for increased reliability and low acoustics for ultra-quiet PCs and external drives.

Massive capacity - Capacities up to 2 TB offer the most available capacity for storage-intensive programs and space-hungry operating systems, like Windows Vista®, with plenty of room left over for photos, music, and video.

Perfect for external drives - External drive manufacturers can eliminate the need for a fan in a high-capacity product with a WD Caviar Green drive, the coolest and quietest in its class.

IntelliPower - A fine-tuned balance of spin speed, transfer rate and caching algorithms designed to deliver both significant power savings and solid performance. IntelliSeek - Calculates optimum seek speeds to lower power consumption, noise, and vibration.

NoTouch ramp load technology - The recording head never touches the disk media ensuring significantly less wear to the recording head and media as well as better drive protection in transit. Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (PMR) - Employs PMR technology to achieve even greater areal density.

StableTrac - The motor shaft is secured at both ends to reduce system-induced vibration and stabilize platters for accurate tracking, during read and write operations. (2 TB models only)

Low power spin-up - WD Caviar Green drives consume less current during startup allowing lower peak loads.

Advanced power technology - Electronic components deliver best-in-class low power consumption for reduced power requirements and increased reliability. Ideal For

Environmentally friendly PCs and external storage requiring lower power consumption and cool, quiet operation.

33 Comments

Don't forget 3% quidco

Also Samsung HD203WI 2TB Spinpoint F3 EcoGreen 3.5" SATA II Hard Drive £90.00 collected or £98.63 delivered next day! @ Aria.co.uk

aria.co.uk/Sup…322

I'd rather have the Samsung equivalent, WD have been p*****ng me off lately

The Samsung has 32MB buffer as compared to 64MB on the WD and 5400rpm as compared to 7200rpm on the WD. I have seen good and bad reviews about every brand, so WD ordered, Thanks !!

whats the cheapest 2TB drive including delivery that's available anywhere right now (apart from ebay or dodgyshop.com ) ?

i forgot about the dabs voucher/offer the other week that worked out at £95 all in. not as cheap as the hens teeth drives that a couple of forums were offering or the £87 ebuyer misprice though

Hi, looking for a large internal 2nd drive for storage on my desktop. Will store films, musi, picutes, lightroom library etc. All will be backed up externally.
Is this the sort of drive I'm looking for?
Is the 7200rpm / larger cache particularly important for my needs?

Just trying to figure out what I need to go for / avoid.

Thanks RS

it's NOT 7200rpm

although may be quicker then the hitachi 7200rpm drive anyway..

I am not sure that this is a 7200rpm drive. The WD spec sheets state the speed as 'Intellipower'. Shady marketing BS. They have used this description for 5400, 7200 and variable speed drives. Why can't they be open and honest?

Be careful where you use these drives as they have 4K sectors.

bytemaster;8547030

Be careful where you use these drives as they have 4K sectors.



You can format the drive to any size sectors you wish, with 64K being recommended for the WHS drive pool

bytemaster;8547030

I am not sure that this is a 7200rpm drive. The WD spec sheets state the … I am not sure that this is a 7200rpm drive. The WD spec sheets state the speed as 'Intellipower'. Shady marketing BS. They have used this description for 5400, 7200 and variable speed drives. Why can't they be open and honest?



Thanks for the heads up on that, nearly ordered thinking it was 7200. (Would've checked first)

RoyalVilla;8546996

Hi, looking for a large internal 2nd drive for storage on my desktop. … Hi, looking for a large internal 2nd drive for storage on my desktop. Will store films, musi, picutes, lightroom library etc. All will be backed up externally.Is this the sort of drive I'm looking for?Is the 7200rpm / larger cache particularly important for my needs?Just trying to figure out what I need to go for / avoid.Thanks RS



This is exactly the kind of drive you should get - large, cheap, low noise and low power (consumption). :thumbsup:

Not sure if this will be 7,200RPM or not, but I believe the drive adjusts the RPM as necessary though to save power when in light use.

as per the spec sheet:

Performance Drive Transfer Rate 300 MBps (external) / 93.5 MBps (internal)
Seek Time 8.9 ms (average) / 21 ms (max)
Spindle Speed 7200 rpm
Track-to-Track Seek Time 2 ms
Average Latency 4.2 ms

why all the uncertainty about whether it will be 7200rpm or not?

Original Poster

If you look at the specifications on the website it states 7200 rpm ^_____^

sillumjay;8547324

If you look at the specifications on the website it states 7200 rpm … If you look at the specifications on the website it states 7200 rpm ^_____^



Check the manufacturer's spec sheets - Intellipower. On the WD web site it says Intellipower and that is what it states on the pdf spec sheet.

It may be 7200, but I can't find anything from WD that states that. Retailer specs are frequently wrong.

BTW. I am not saying it is a bad deal, simply that I am uncertain that it is 7200 rpm.

ElGato;8547126

You can format the drive to any size sectors you wish, with 64K being … You can format the drive to any size sectors you wish, with 64K being recommended for the WHS drive pool)



I was referring to the hard sectors on the drive. These new drives have a 4K sector which does not immediately work well with XP and various NAS units. There are solutions, but the hassle is not present if you use drives with the classic 512 byte sectors. No problem with W7. Probably all large drives will move to 4K sectors in due course, but for now they can be a headache.

If you google for "4k wd problem" you will be able to read more about the problem.

Original Poster

The specs on the website indicate 7200 rpm but looking at reviews online these claims are wrong and run at 5400rpm.

Apologise for the confusion.

Is 4k ok for Vista?

RoyalVilla;8547657

Is 4k ok for Vista?



This ]article says 4K OK for W7, Vista and Macs.

bytemaster;8547030

I am not sure that this is a 7200rpm drive. The WD spec sheets state the … I am not sure that this is a 7200rpm drive. The WD spec sheets state the speed as 'Intellipower'. Shady marketing BS. They have used this description for 5400, 7200 and variable speed drives. Why can't they be open and honest?Be careful where you use these drives as they have 4K sectors.



anything wrong with 4k sectors?

that's good for accessing a lot of small files like audio samples / photos

this price is what i'm talking about and with 64mb it's wicked sick !!!:whistling:

cmon people these are the green series don't expect much performance out of them they are purely for storage, go get the caviar blue or blacks if you're after performance

for hard drives 64mb cache is not really much better than 32mb

these drives will be good for storage, not so good for running an OS

Any suggestion for a pair of drives to be put in raid to run an os?

bytemaster;8547490

I was referring to the hard sectors on the drive. These new drives have a … I was referring to the hard sectors on the drive. These new drives have a 4K sector which does not immediately work well with XP and various NAS units. There are solutions, but the hassle is not present if you use drives with the classic 512 byte sectors. No problem with W7. Probably all large drives will move to 4K sectors in due course, but for now they can be a headache.If you google for "4k wd problem" you will be able to read more about the problem.



Wow, you really do learn something new every day. Thanks for that.

I would give you more rep if I could but apparently I haven't spread it around enough yet, which seems a little weird.

Tezmundo786;8547190

as per the spec sheet:Performance Drive Transfer Rate 300 MBps (external) … as per the spec sheet:Performance Drive Transfer Rate 300 MBps (external) / 93.5 MBps (internal) Seek Time 8.9 ms (average) / 21 ms (max) Spindle Speed 7200 rpm Track-to-Track Seek Time 2 ms Average Latency 4.2 ms why all the uncertainty about whether it will be 7200rpm or not?



Maybe because that's taken from the retailers web site, there is no mention on the WDC site about this or any EG drive being 7200RPM, just states Intellipower.

And just as I post this I go back to make sure and find this;

WD20EARS 2 TB (2000 GB) SATA 3 Gb/s 5400-7200 N/A 64 MB x more info

So it seems minimum is 5400, and up to 7200.

ElGato;8549425

Wow, you really do learn something new every day. Thanks for that.I would … Wow, you really do learn something new every day. Thanks for that.I would give you more rep if I could but apparently I haven't spread it around enough yet, which seems a little weird.



You must have repped him already in the past?

I don't think it matters how long ago it was, I just don't think you can rep anyone twice... ever. I think this is to avoid to friends repping each other to the maximum or even worse, someone with duplicate accounts.

PoisonJam;8549585

You must have repped him already in the past?I don't think it matters how … You must have repped him already in the past?I don't think it matters how long ago it was, I just don't think you can rep anyone twice... ever. I think this is to avoid to friends repping each other to the maximum or even worse, someone with duplicate accounts.



I did, and fair point.

Excellent price... I plumped for the Sammy instead, since they are both the same price.

I am thinking about buying one of these to team up with a 1TB Seagate in a RAID array for backup (or maybe two of these by themselves). Other than the additional 1TB it would give me, would there be any performance difference between a) having two of these drives, and b) one of these plus my 1TB Seagate? In other words, do paired drives perform better in a RAID array, or does it make no difference?

Cheers!

Sweetchuck;8570905

I am thinking about buying one of these to team up with a 1TB Seagate in … I am thinking about buying one of these to team up with a 1TB Seagate in a RAID array for backup (or maybe two of these by themselves). Other than the additional 1TB it would give me, would there be any performance difference between a) having two of these drives, and b) one of these plus my 1TB Seagate? In other words, do paired drives perform better in a RAID array, or does it make no difference?Cheers!



Unfortunately, if you configure this using any of the RAID standards that meet the RAID specifications, you will lose 1TB. Both drives must be of the same capacity to use mirrored or striped RAID. You will certainly receive better performance with striped RAID but you will be forsaking 1TB in storage.

Some RAID controllers support an option called JBOD (Just a Bunch of Disks or Just a Bunch of Drives or whatever you wish to call it). JBOD allows 2 drives to be connected in such a way that logically, the OS sees it as one contiguous drive allowing for 3 TB in your scenario. It is not a standard and certainly not part of RAID specification. It does not improve performance (as striping would), performs no mirroring but simply allows you to assign one drive letter to the 2 drives.

ElliottC;8570950

Unfortunately, if you configure this using any of the RAID standards that … Unfortunately, if you configure this using any of the RAID standards that meet the RAID specifications, you will lose 1TB. Both drives must be of the same capacity to use mirrored or striped RAID. You will certainly receive better performance with striped RAID but you will be forsaking 1TB in storage.Some RAID controllers support an option called JBOD (Just a Bunch of Disks or Just a Bunch of Drives or whatever you wish to call it). JBOD allows 2 drives to be connected in such a way that logically, the OS sees it as one contiguous drive allowing for 3 TB in your scenario. It is not a standard and certainly not part of RAID specification. It does not improve performance (as striping would), performs no mirroring but simply allows you to assign one drive letter to the 2 drives.



Hi there. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was intending to use these either as a JBOD or concatenated (BIG) architecture in a multi-bay SATA enclosure with RAID, not in a RAID array per se. Is there any performance advantage in having a matched pair of drives in a JBOD or BIG array, or is there no difference when working with totally different drives/capacities?

I had also flirted with the idea of using a SAFE33 architecture instead: does that also require matched drive size (reverting to the smaller capacity where two unequal drive sizes are present), or can unmatched capacities be used fully?

Sweetchuck;8571380

Hi there. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was intending to use these … Hi there. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was intending to use these either as a JBOD or concatenated (BIG) architecture in a multi-bay SATA enclosure with RAID, not in a RAID array per se. Is there any performance advantage in having a matched pair of drives in a JBOD or BIG array, or is there no difference when working with totally different drives/capacities?I had also flirted with the idea of using a SAFE33 architecture instead: does that also require matched drive size (reverting to the smaller capacity where two unequal drive sizes are present), or can unmatched capacities be used fully?



Neither JBOD nor SAFE33 will offer improvement in performance. SAFE33 does allow for drives of differing capacities and provides mirroring to a certain extent with the data from the lower capacity drive being retrievable after a drive failure but any data beyond the size of the lower capacity of the 2 drives will not be retrievable if the larger hard drive fails. You will need to use STRIPE mode for extra performance - if the drives are of differing capacities then the lowest capacity of the drives will be used, eg. one 400GB drive and one 500GB drive in a striped array will give a combined capacity of 800GB with 100GB lost. As you mention performance when using a matched pair of drives, it will be prudent to opt for a striped array, when using matched pairs of drives.

Sweetchuck;8571380

Hi there. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was intending to use these … Hi there. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was intending to use these either as a JBOD or concatenated (BIG) architecture in a multi-bay SATA enclosure with RAID, not in a RAID array per se. Is there any performance advantage in having a matched pair of drives in a JBOD or BIG array, or is there no difference when working with totally different drives/capacities?I had also flirted with the idea of using a SAFE33 architecture instead: does that also require matched drive size (reverting to the smaller capacity where two unequal drive sizes are present), or can unmatched capacities be used fully?



I don't think that SAFE33 needs matched capacity drives - but I could be wrong. However I would be concerned that the 4KB sectoring on these drives may cause some incompatibility problems if paired up with a 512B sector drive in any form of array.

ElliottC;8571480

Neither JBOD nor SAFE33 will offer improvement in performance. SAFE33 … Neither JBOD nor SAFE33 will offer improvement in performance. SAFE33 does allow for drives of differing capacities and provides mirroring to a certain extent with the data from the lower capacity drive being retrievable after a drive failure but any data beyond the size of the lower capacity of the 2 drives will not be retrievable if the larger hard drive fails. You will need to use STRIPE mode for extra performance - if the drives are of differing capacities then the lowest capacity of the drives will be used, eg. one 400GB drive and one 500GB drive in a striped array will give a combined capacity of 800GB with 100GB lost. As you mention performance when using a matched pair of drives, it will be prudent to opt for a striped array, when using matched pairs of drives.



Hi. Thanks again for the info. When I talk about performance, I don't mean to comapre the performance of JBOD/BIG/SAFE33 vs RAID. The performance differential I'm referring to is whether two unmatched disks in a JBOD/BIG/SAFE33 array will work more slowly than two matched disks in a JBOD array. I'm not keen on striping or mirroring (well, not beyond 33% with SAFE33 anyway) as maximising storage space (whilst keeping a small mirrored partition) is a bigger concern for me than complete data redundancy.

Sweetchuck;8571754

Hi. Thanks again for the info. When I talk about performance, I don't … Hi. Thanks again for the info. When I talk about performance, I don't mean to comapre the performance of JBOD/BIG/SAFE33 vs RAID. The performance differential I'm referring to is whether two unmatched disks in a JBOD/BIG/SAFE33 array will work more slowly than two matched disks in a JBOD array. I'm not keen on striping or mirroring (well, not beyond 33% with SAFE33 anyway) as maximising storage space (whilst keeping a small mirrored partition) is a bigger concern for me than complete data redundancy.



Unfortunately, I cannot answer that fully but reasoning suggests that the overheads will be detrimental to performance if firmware RAID is used, which most cheap controllers built into motherboards (or cheap expansion cards) are. Firmware RAID do not incorporate a controller and the processing is carried out by the CPU. True hardware RAID controllers do have inbuilt controllers and if that is what you are using (or intend to be using), there should be no issue with performance degradation. If you are using the ubiquitous firmware RAID (or fake RAID as it is sometimes called) then the CPU does the work. Since SAFE33 requires extra processing, it stands to reason that it is likely to have some impact on performance in terms of used CPU cycles. I suspect that drive performance would be affected to since an area of storage needs to be accessed everytime the drives are written to. However, I have no real world benchmark tests to verify this. Using a hardware controller should address these issues.

Sweetchuck;8571754

Hi. Thanks again for the info. When I talk about performance, I don't … Hi. Thanks again for the info. When I talk about performance, I don't mean to comapre the performance of JBOD/BIG/SAFE33 vs RAID. The performance differential I'm referring to is whether two unmatched disks in a JBOD/BIG/SAFE33 array will work more slowly than two matched disks in a JBOD array. I'm not keen on striping or mirroring (well, not beyond 33% with SAFE33 anyway) as maximising storage space (whilst keeping a small mirrored partition) is a bigger concern for me than complete data redundancy.



Sorry, I think I have told you wrong. SAFE33 allows for a hybrid RAID whereby 33% of the array is mirrored but the rest being striped. It has been confirmed to me that there are performance benefits with SAFE33 but very little. There are still the CPU overheads if using firmware RAID though.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text