• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Be aware of the WD2500YD

J

jack bauer

Senior member
I bought a Western Digital SATA 3.0 250G 16 cache from newegg last week. I found out from WD that if the drive was made before March 1, 2006 it is really SATA150. I called newegg and they will RMA. Now what? I want another drive, SATA 3.0 and 16mb cache, 250G at the most. What should I buy? Is SATA 3.0 worth sending it back? What should I do? The HD cost me 95.00 plus tax/ship.

ps i will not be pairing my drives. can you run sata 3.0 w/out pairing two drives?

Mobo: a8n32
 
why do people even bother with SATA 2... you really think your drive is going to transfer at 300 MB /s ? That drive in particular wont even come close to capping the 150 MB/s speed of regular sata. In fact thats why drives with ATA133 are still being made, because thats not even maxed out...
 
sure, but I would buy a seagate over a WD anyday. unless you want a raptor... then its different. otherwise seagate all the way.
 
Originally posted by: JAG87
why do people even bother with SATA 2... you really think your drive is going to transfer at 300 MB /s ? That drive in particular wont even come close to capping the 150 MB/s speed of regular sata. In fact thats why drives with ATA133 are still being made, because thats not even maxed out...
Click to expand...

so I guess I get should keep what I got if the 3.0G don't even reach 150 status, right?
 
it may not use the full 150mb/s but newer technology = faster technology, generally.

i'd get western digital over seagate. the warranty is fine. the re2 is good but it's more suited for raid configurations. the re2 and se16 are both good choices
 
Originally posted by: jack bauer
ok. then should I just keep the drive or get the WD KS RE16 model instead?
Click to expand...

The 250KS is $95 shipped, the 250YD is also $95. My understanding of WD naming is that "K" is for "desktop" use, and "Y" is for "enterprise". The second letter I thought told you about the interface, i.e. "S" would be SATA II (3.0 GB/s), and "D" would be SATA (1.5 GB/s).

However, the YD model claims SATA II (well, newegg does anyway). Although, the first letter does make sense, as it does carry the 5 year warranty that comes with "enterprise" models, where as the KS has the 3 year "desktop" model warranty. This alone would make me choose it, since the two drives are the same price.

Enterprise models are also supposed to be tested more, and therefore have a higher MTBF. I think the enterprise models also support NCQ, but I'm not sure.

I'd stick with the 250YD model, if for nothing else, a 5 year warranty and likely higher MTBF.

I'm sure someone knows more about WD drives and their naming system, maybe they'll come by and clean up any errors in my post. :beer:
 
Originally posted by: JAG87
why do people even bother with SATA 2... you really think your drive is going to transfer at 300 MB /s ? That drive in particular wont even come close to capping the 150 MB/s speed of regular sata. In fact thats why drives with ATA133 are still being made, because thats not even maxed out...
Click to expand...

More importantly, the read or write conditions that allow the interface to reach max. sustained throughput just don't happen often in real-world usage patterns. But what is very important is seek times, and newer disks usually mean faster seeks.
 
I talked to western digital and went with the KS. They said the KS works better alone, and the YD works better if paired.
 
Originally posted by: jack bauer
I talked to western digital and went with the KS. They said the KS works better alone, and the YD works better if paired.
Click to expand...

That's what they say, but as far as i know it's not backed up by any tests or reasons the only thing that is different is TLER, which shouldn't even affect the performance outside of RAID (it may be a help in a RAID system, but that's different). Could well be that WD want to save some pennies by offering a shorter warranty for their desktop market.

SATAII is utterly pointless for 99% of home users, and remember that the fastest SATA drive around is the raptor 150, which is SATA.
 
EDIT: never mind I have the KS

However, not really worth it to send it back since the sustained rate doesn't even reach ATA100 speeds, let alone ata150 or 3G. The burst rate may be a bit lower but thats about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top