Is The WD Caviar Green Really That Bad?


#1

I bought the 1.5T 15EARS as it had a 64 MB cache. I thought it would perform faster under a 64-Bit Win 7. Boy was I wrong. After installing I used HD Tune to check the disk. Here’s the result. I then tested my 1T Seagate with 32 MB cache. The difference is obvious. Am I doing something wrong with the WD?

PS I’m just putting the 2 pics together as I don’t know how to properly format this message.

PSS  I used Win 7 64-Bit  to format the WD.


#2

I’ve now gone through most of this forum and posts concerning WD EARS drives. I’ve come to the conclusion that:

  1. It is almost unanimous that WD EARS drives ■■■■.
  2. Green = Low Performance.
  3. The power you save with these drives isn’t going to light up your life.
  4. Stay away from WD drives in the future.

Fortunately I’m able to move all my high performance chores to my other Seagate drives and only use the WD15EARS for torrent and backup activities. And thanks to this experience I’m now a little more knowledgeable about drives and I should do better when I have to buy my next drive.

Finally, I only hope that WD will soon be able to come up with a firmware update to improve the performance of these drives. But I’m not holding my breath.


#3

I’m also experiencing something very similar to you neo. I dont think i’ll buy anything WD related again after wasting $100+ on a new paperweight.


#4

Yesterday on Wall Street, Western Digital Corp. (WDC) fell 6.69% to $28.16. Wonder if investors have been here reading these forums?


#5

WD surely isn’t reading them!