Hitachi 1TB for 66.50 AC

[Eureka]

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=HD-0A38016

$70 shipped - 5% CB = $66.50!

Price Hike: $75 shipped - 5% CB = $71.25 shipped

 

[superHARD]

not bad, too bad limit 1.

 

[Kalessian]

How is ewiz's drive shipping?

 

[jlchoi]

Pretty good price without any rebates.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: Kalessian
How is ewiz's drive shipping?

Their PSU packaging was almost non-existent. My PSU arrived in an oversized box with a thin piece of plastic used as padding. Seems to work fine though

 

[Eureka]

I ordered my 4890 from them... it was packed ok, stuffed with paper but in a large box and a lot of paper.

 

[TwiceOver]

Very tempting.

Also note that there are a few combo deals toward the bottom of the page that seem fairly good if you need any of those items also.

 

[Tullphan]

Even though this drive is supposedly slower than the WD Black, would it be a decent all-around drive for picture, music & video storage?

 

[Eureka]

Originally posted by: Tullphan
Even though this drive is supposedly slower than the WD Black, would it be a decent all-around drive for picture, music & video storage?

Actually from what I've it compares pretty well with the WD Black in everything besides access time.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...l-terabyte,2017-6.html

 

[Kalessian]

This Hitachi is not the same one everyone must be thinking of. The old model had 5 platters and was slow, this new .B model has 3 platters and is a very quick drive.

Here are some benches from sleefer's machine in the old newegg drive sale post. The Hitachi is better overall, though the WD Black has a 2-5 ms access time advantage.


HD Tune: Hitachi HDT721010SLA3 Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 55.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 112.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 89.8 MB/sec
Access Time : 15.0 ms
Burst Rate : 167.1 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 4.0%

HD Tune: WDC WD1001FALS-00K1B0 Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 52.6 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 106.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 85.9 MB/sec
Access Time : 12.4 ms
Burst Rate : 112.2 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 7.0%

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Kalessian
This Hitachi is not the same one everyone must be thinking of. The old model had 5 platters and was slow, this new .B model has 3 platters and is a very quick drive.

Here are some benches from sleefer's machine in the old newegg drive sale post. The Hitachi is better overall, though the WD Black has a 2-5 ms access time advantage.


HD Tune: Hitachi HDT721010SLA3 Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 55.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 112.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 89.8 MB/sec
Access Time : 15.0 ms
Burst Rate : 167.1 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 4.0%

HD Tune: WDC WD1001FALS-00K1B0 Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 52.6 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 106.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 85.9 MB/sec
Access Time : 12.4 ms
Burst Rate : 112.2 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 7.0%

I can't be waiting all kinds of ms!!

 

[mindless1]

Originally posted by: Tullphan
Even though this drive is supposedly slower than the WD Black, would it be a decent all-around drive for picture, music & video storage?

Why not get a greener 5400 to 5900 RPM drive for that? Now that a few are at 500GB/platter I don't see the reason to get 7200 RPM drives for multimedia storage. Then again they cost a dozen bucks more but for mere bulk storage you could get by with a drive that's 1/4th the performance of anything made today.

 

[Eureka]

Originally posted by: mindless1

Originally posted by: Tullphan
Even though this drive is supposedly slower than the WD Black, would it be a decent all-around drive for picture, music & video storage?

Why not get a greener 5400 to 5900 RPM drive for that? Now that a few are at 500GB/platter I don't see the reason to get 7200 RPM drives for multimedia storage. Then again they cost a dozen bucks more but for mere bulk storage you could get by with a drive that's 1/4th the performance of anything made today.

What's the purpose? Green drives go for $20 more, are slower, the only real benefit is slightly lower power usage and heat.

 

[mindless1]

Originally posted by: Eureka

Originally posted by: mindless1

Originally posted by: Tullphan
Even though this drive is supposedly slower than the WD Black, would it be a decent all-around drive for picture, music & video storage?

Why not get a greener 5400 to 5900 RPM drive for that? Now that a few are at 500GB/platter I don't see the reason to get 7200 RPM drives for multimedia storage. Then again they cost a dozen bucks more but for mere bulk storage you could get by with a drive that's 1/4th the performance of anything made today.

What's the purpose? Green drives go for $20 more, are slower, the only real benefit is slightly lower power usage and heat.

They're a little less than $20 higher, there is no need for faster, or really I should write no reason to want faster even if non-green were 2X faster rather than a fairly small % faster in a use where the HDD isn't a bottleneck.

The benefits are indeed lower heat and power usage, as well as vibrational and regular noise, and all else being equal a longer lifespan (if they didn't produce less heat and vibration, factors that also contribute to lower lifespan) due to less bearing wear.

The bottom line is a computer costs hundreds, what is a dozen dollars one way or the other? Surely for multimedia storage a green drive is superior in every way that could matter, and so it goes that any superior part tends to cost a little bit more.

 

[arkcom]

Originally posted by: mindless1

Originally posted by: Eureka

Originally posted by: mindless1

Originally posted by: Tullphan
Even though this drive is supposedly slower than the WD Black, would it be a decent all-around drive for picture, music & video storage?

Why not get a greener 5400 to 5900 RPM drive for that? Now that a few are at 500GB/platter I don't see the reason to get 7200 RPM drives for multimedia storage. Then again they cost a dozen bucks more but for mere bulk storage you could get by with a drive that's 1/4th the performance of anything made today.

What's the purpose? Green drives go for $20 more, are slower, the only real benefit is slightly lower power usage and heat.

They're a little less than $20 higher, there is no need for faster, or really I should write no reason to want faster even if non-green were 2X faster rather than a fairly small % faster in a use where the HDD isn't a bottleneck.

The benefits are indeed lower heat and power usage, as well as vibrational and regular noise, and all else being equal a longer lifespan (if they didn't produce less heat and vibration, factors that also contribute to lower lifespan) due to less bearing wear.

The bottom line is a computer costs hundreds, what is a dozen dollars one way or the other? Surely for multimedia storage a green drive is superior in every way that could matter, and so it goes that any superior part tends to cost a little bit more.

If it is just for media storage it doesn't really matter how much power it uses, it'll be turned off most of the time. Not to mention there is less than 2w difference anyway.

 

[mindless1]

Originally posted by: arkcom
If it is just for media storage it doesn't really matter how much power it uses, it'll be turned off most of the time. Not to mention there is less than 2w difference anyway.

What makes you assume it'll be turned off most of the time? Windows spins up drives all the time for random or no obvious reasons, let alone the obvious which would be accessing the media. Besides which, it does really matter how much power it uses, this does have a direct relationship on measured temperatures.

To offset higher temps someone can just increase case airflow a little, but that's an increase in noise and dust accumulation (even if just a filter that needs cleaned a bit more often), all for the benefit of what, saving a little money? In that case someone can just pick a slower CPU too.

The idle power of a Hitachi 7K1000 1TB is 5.2W, but the spec sheet I saw does not list the read/write wattage. If another drive uses 2W less, that's a 38% power reduction, a significant amount remembering that the chips don't have heatsinks, nor is there a fan built in. It's certainly not enough to make the hotter drive fail in a properly designed system but we still come back to the central issue that one is more suitable than the other for bulk storage of files that don't need performance even 1/4th as fast as either drive.

I'm not suggesting anyone "has" to feel the differences are worth the difference in price, only that the tradeoffs made to get slightly higher performance are contrary to the best product for the task... and the performance difference really isn't much if the Hitachi is still using the 350GB platters instead of 500GB platters, latency for multimedia files is not important.

 

[StormSide]

Up to $74.99 shipped ....

 

[jakethesnake011]

Still a great deal with price bump, I was able to get 2 Samsung's 1 TB for 150