Generally speaking, don't you want to keep a fair amount of your drive empty? I'd guess 80% or so is full.....so that's only around 750GB (2^n).
I've had hundreds of GB of concerts on my HD at times (I fall behind on my burning sometimes
)![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
$259 1tb western digital hard drive
- Thread starter mnewxcv
- Start date
Generally speaking, don't you want to keep a fair amount of your drive empty? I'd guess 80% or so is full.....so that's only around 750GB (2^n).
I've had hundreds of GB of concerts on my HD at times (I fall behind on my burning sometimes
)Generally speaking, don't you want to keep a fair amount of your drive empty? I'd guess 80% or so is full.....so that's only around 750GB (2^n).
I've had hundreds of GB of concerts on my HD at times (I fall behind on my burning sometimes
I wish I can keep my capacity below 80%!
Justintoxicated
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2002
- Messages
- 14,519
Must hold out for price drop....
At any level the difference is the same
jaegertech
Gawd
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Messages
- 603
No, it isn't. Examples:
KB 1,000 vs 1,024 = 2.4%
MB 1,000,000 vs 1,048,576 = 4.9%
GB 1,000,000,000 vs 1,073,741,824 = 7.4%
TB 1,000,000,000,000 vs 1,099,511,627,776 = 10%
Yes, but we are dealing in GB only. (well, 1 TB now)
my 400GB drive is 372GB = -7%
my 250GB drive is 232GB = -7%
my 300GB drive is 279GB = -7%
my 1TB drive is 930GB = -7%
Seems pretty standard to me. I just write off the advertised capacity as marketing, I know and have known for years that they base the capacity differently than the computer sees it. Get over it, they are not going to change. I know my 1TB holds 2x a 500GB drive.
Do we really want to be talking about tebibytes?
now it should say " kuyaglen 1TB+ of pr0n"
thx man . Only 16 mb cache .
Eww....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Seagate's and Hitachi's 1 TB drives come with 32mb cache? May be a deal breaker for me.
Besides, I'd like to see some performance benchies before i buy. I hope StorageReview gets a hold of one of these soon to analze.
actually thats an old poof, when glen archives most of his old pr0n to dvd while keeping 5 HDs dedicated to LAN leeching. Although large lans today like PDX prohibit this kind of distrubution, therefore, we have [TMC]black ops division. Come see us at a big west coast lan
and enjoy 3.5+ TB of goodness most in HD!
The differenece is really the same, basically your actual true storage capacity will remain the same regardless of what they put outside of the box.
Sure the numbers are off, but if they made it a 931gb hard drive, I am sure a lot of people would be "why couldn't you have made it at least 1tb?!!?" At least now they can keep the numbers even and it should always be asumed that the numbers aren't actual.
Kinda like AMD and their numbers, sure it's a 6000+, but does it run at 6,000mhz? nope. It should be assumed and I think if they keep it like how they have done in the past, things wont be all complicated... now if they changed the numbers to be more accurate, which do you think will sell better and people would be more interested in? A 1TB drive with 931gb of usable space or an 931gb hard drive with 931 of space?
Really, regardless of the box description and names, it's only 931gb of space... in other words, it's the same difference.
(I'm using 931gb as an example btw).
Eww....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Seagate's and Hitachi's 1 TB drives come with 32mb cache? May be a deal breaker for me.
Besides, I'd like to see some performance benchies before i buy. I hope StorageReview gets a hold of one of these soon to analze.
Yes, they come with 32mb cache and this is a 16mb of cache, keep in mind, the target of this drive is power consumption. This drive wasn't meant to attack and destroy Raptor 150's, it was meant for large bulk storage with a great power savings.
I'll be running benchies on wed most probably.
FWIW, this drive consumes a quarter of the power than a normal drive, thats the selling point... it's incredibly efficient... you can keep your extra 16mb of cache... and I'll keep my cash
Power money saved and purchase priced saved vs a traditional drive, a person would have to be a fool to look the other way. If you are looking at a 1TB drive, I'm willing to bet that this isn't your only drive nor is performance your main factor.jaegertech
Gawd
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Messages
- 603
1 TB = 1,024 GB.
Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
It depends up who you are talking to and which tech you are talking about. People are so bent on applying an idea to something to rationalize their thoughts. The fact is a byte is a byte and a megabyte is 1 million bytes. However...to keep it simple for our bosses we said 1024bytes (because digital electronics are designed upon base 2) is a "kilo-byte". However this is wrong.
Kilo = 1,000
Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000
Tera = 1,000,000,000,000
These are part of standards. If you ad the word byte to the end, the prefix DOESN'T change. This is why they came up with Mi,Gi,Ti prefixes to help people realize there is a difference.
Therefore if you buy a 1 Terabyte drive, you are getting 1 trillion bytes...no more, and no less. But keep fooling yourself into thinking you are getting robbed...
They are 3 year warranty, WD doesn't do the 1 year warranty on retail boxed hard drives anymore, since August 1st, 2007.
The differenece is really the same, basically your actual true storage capacity will remain the same regardless of what they put outside of the box.
Sure the numbers are off, but if they made it a 931gb hard drive, I am sure a lot of people would be "why couldn't you have made it at least 1tb?!!?" At least now they can keep the numbers even and it should always be asumed that the numbers aren't actual.
Kinda like AMD and their numbers, sure it's a 6000+, but does it run at 6,000mhz? nope. It should be assumed and I think if they keep it like how they have done in the past, things wont be all complicated... now if they changed the numbers to be more accurate, which do you think will sell better and people would be more interested in? A 1TB drive with 931gb of usable space or an 931gb hard drive with 931 of space?
Really, regardless of the box description and names, it's only 931gb of space... in other words, it's the same difference.
(I'm using 931gb as an example btw).
Yes, they come with 32mb cache and this is a 16mb of cache, keep in mind, the target of this drive is power consumption. This drive wasn't meant to attack and destroy Raptor 150's, it was meant for large bulk storage with a great power savings.
I'll be running benchies on wed most probably.
FWIW, this drive consumes a quarter of the power than a normal drive, thats the selling point... it's incredibly efficient... you can keep your extra 16mb of cache... and I'll keep my cash
A large drive is for storing or working on large files , like videos or images . So performance does matter . And for the power savings i think its over rated if your not using 10 or more of those in your rig . I mean 4 or 5 W of savings on a rig that uses around 500W or more - wheres the big deal ???
For every $500 you earn, give me $4-5 bucks... whats the big deal? The numbers adds up. Why aren't you still using a 50% efficiency PSU and a 130w CPU? Do you use cool-n-quiet? Do you slow your fans down?
jaegertech
Gawd
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Messages
- 603
See, this is the sort of thing that makes me curse in German. I specifically stated in my first post that I did not feel I was getting robbed.
Here, quoting myself:
jaegertech said:
Let me do that again:
jaegertech said:
It is a matter of convenience. I am quite familiar with the difference between Tibi (2^40) and Tera (10^12). The majority of computer users aren't. Almost none of the people I build machines for are, at least not before they bitch at me about their "missing gigabytes."
Anyways, I've dragged this this off-topic and I really shouldn't have, so I'm not going to post again about this. Sorry OP.
For every $500 you earn, give me $4-5 bucks... whats the big deal? The numbers adds up. Why aren't you still using a 50% efficiency PSU and a 130w CPU? Do you use cool-n-quiet? Do you slow your fans down?
Sure the numbers add up , but it would be like saving nickels to buy a house . WD is marketing this drive like you would save a lot of money on energy , and thats simply not true . Its designed as desktop drive , and how many drives someone uses normally in his rig , not enough to really see that great savings proposed by WD .
As to the use of fancontrollers , they slow your fan down but they dont save power . CPU using 120W are normal these days .
Computers now are a lot more power hungry than in the past . I remember my first pc that was running an AMD , 2 hdd , videocard , burner and dvd drive with 1gb of ram with only a 100W PSU which was more than enough .
So after they crancked up the power thurst of todays systems now they market a 1% or less saving on a complete system as a big deal ?!
But anyways we are getting of topic here .
$259 for a 1tb drive is a good deal , but im actually looking for something with a little more performance .
Blackforge
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 718
I bought one of these. It replaces a 500GB Western Digital that I've been using as my main Vista Ultimate 64-bit drive. Benchmarks have shown an improvement. I haven't had time to play any games to see if there was a noticeable improvement with load times as I spent most of Sunday night dumping one drive to the other using dd off a Linux boot disk. Then used Vista to expand the partition. Plus it was Heroes premier night yesterday
Actually, using your numbers, it would be like saving 4,000-5,000 dollars buying a 500,000 dollar home. Hardly small to scoff at.
How is it not true??! LOL It's a quarter of the power consumption. It saves you from buying a larger PSU, it saves you from heat... sigh, i've been over this already.
Where did western digital show "great" savings for using a single drive?? They showed that your savings for a single drive computer is $7.50 a year per drive. Hardly nickles. Not only do you pay LESS or equal to the compeditor drives, but you save power at it... and you are freaking out about that??! sheesh.
Who said anything about using a resistive fan controller? Fans can be bought in slower variants and can be wired to use less power.. not resist more power.
It is?!?!
Todays new processors are in the 65w range with a HUGE demand of pushing it down further.
For example, the quad core from intel is a mere 95w... and that is a quad core. I don't see where you get 120w is normal, processors are constantly reducing their consumption as efficiency is a major goal in computing.
120w may still be used for very high end processors, but it's far from the norm and far from the future. It's essentially a thing of the past.
I'm sorry, you may not care about heat, power consumption, noise, and efficiency... but I would be willing to bet a majority of us desires at least one of those properties.
So, to think that you could have gotten away with an 80w psu had you have used a green drive......
Yes, DUH, they are using more power, and in the not too distant past things has spun out of controll in terms of power consumption... hence why the entire industry is focusing on efficiency.
When you focus all your components to efficiency you can see greater gains as than what you are claiming.
I wouldn't be surprised if I come VERY close or equal to your OLD computers consumption using a modern, dual core machine, two gigs of memory DDR2 btw, 2 terrabytes of storage, and a Bluray/HD-DVD hybrid drive... all using the latest components.
It will run circles around your old machine and has every modern technology and enough spec that it's nothing to laugh at.
Little more performance, do you have statistics or data to provide some facts to your bold assumption? Actual performance stats have not been shown yet to my knowledge.
Actually, using your numbers, it would be like saving 4,000-5,000 dollars buying a 500,000 dollar home. Hardly small to scoff at.
How is it not true??! LOL It's a quarter of the power consumption. It saves you from buying a larger PSU, it saves you from heat... sigh, i've been over this already.
Where did western digital show "great" savings for using a single drive?? They showed that your savings for a single drive computer is $7.50 a year per drive. Hardly nickles. Not only do you pay LESS or equal to the compeditor drives, but you save power at it... and you are freaking out about that??! sheesh.
Who said anything about using a resistive fan controller? Fans can be bought in slower variants and can be wired to use less power.. not resist more power.
It is?!?!
Todays new processors are in the 65w range with a HUGE demand of pushing it down further.
For example, the quad core from intel is a mere 95w... and that is a quad core. I don't see where you get 120w is normal, processors are constantly reducing their consumption as efficiency is a major goal in computing.
120w may still be used for very high end processors, but it's far from the norm and far from the future. It's essentially a thing of the past.
I'm sorry, you may not care about heat, power consumption, noise, and efficiency... but I would be willing to bet a majority of us desires at least one of those properties.
So, to think that you could have gotten away with an 80w psu had you have used a green drive......
Yes, DUH, they are using more power, and in the not too distant past things has spun out of controll in terms of power consumption... hence why the entire industry is focusing on efficiency.
When you focus all your components to efficiency you can see greater gains as than what you are claiming.
I wouldn't be surprised if I come VERY close or equal to your OLD computers consumption using a modern, dual core machine, two gigs of memory DDR2 btw, 2 terrabytes of storage, and a Bluray/HD-DVD hybrid drive... all using the latest components.
It will run circles around your old machine and has every modern technology and enough spec that it's nothing to laugh at.
Little more performance, do you have statistics or data to provide some facts to your bold assumption? Actual performance stats have not been shown yet to my knowledge.
QFT!! Ockie!! you got an itch for that qoute button??LoL!! peace///
Here I was hoping that they would sneak in a 5 year warranty for us. C'est la vie.
^ Good explanations. This is a big step in the right direction.
I just bought one and I am getting rid of my home server now and will use this drive in my PC. I currently have 4 300g Sata drives running on a 4 port Sata raid card in a Dell Poweredge server. I can sell the server equipment on Ebay, then go buy another one to run Raid 1 and still have some coin left over. I will also save some on the electric bill since I am ridding the server and save some desk space. I wonder what it was costing me yearly to run the server 24hours/365?
Depends on the server specs, a desktop sitting idle most of the time (we're talking low end) is about $5 a month, if that server is older, has dual processors or whatever... your looking around 10-15 bucks a month. If it has load and more accessories, it can be a little bit more.
So you're looking at $120 + a year in savings, not to mention the compounded savings such as the air-conditioning bill.
I think you made a smart move, you are not gaining storage, but you are reducing your points of failures, failure probability, stream lining, reducing noise drastically, and adding redundancy... not to mention, you save $120+ a year or more.... oh, I forgot the most important part, you also have coin left in your pocket.
In contrast, my server bill is about 60ish a month, that means that I can reduce my bill by using these drives to about 20ish... a savings of $40 a month... or $480 a year. Oh and we're not even started on the compounded impact on the airconditioning... my computing room gets HOT, HOT HOT HOT. I can't even run the beast on a hot day when I was at my other place, the airconditioning couldn't take the heat + load... I also had unbareable enviroment... and not to mention, I kept blowing the breakers. Granted, this will be a non issue in my new place, but still a factor in the overall efficiency of your systems.
Drudenhaus
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,126
There are numerous things out there that can gauge power consumption. For example:
http://www.doubleed.com/products.html
Do a bit of math with the systems power consumption and whatever your electric company charges you for a kwh...
A cheaper but just as effective device is the Kill-A-Watt meter, it's only 19 bucks, but man can it give you a good indication where you are throwing your money away to.
I realized after obtaining one that some devices I had drew so much power, than within a month or two I would be able to replace it with a better and more efficient device.
This WD 1TB hard drive costs $249.99. With tax (around 8%), that amounts to about $270. You can find a 750GB hard drive (Seagate for example) for $160 shipped on eBay. This means that for $320, you can have 2x750GB = 1.5 TB. Thus, you get around 500 GB (before format) for an additional $50. However, this does require 2 hard drives, not 1 drive.
jaegertech
Gawd
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Messages
- 603
You can buy 2x 500GB drives for less and have the same amount of drive space for less. I think I can say most of us that have purchased these drives have done so for the reason that you can get the space in a single drive, saving on electricity, heat, etc. I replaced a 400GB and 300GB PATA drives with this drive. I am tempted to pick up a second one to replace 2 of my other drives (2x 400GB).