![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is it normal for a HDD of the same brand, same model, same firmware and same revision
- Thread starter An00bis
- Start date
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
If you are doing a fair test. I mean comparing benchmarks on drives that are equally full. It could be that the RMA has factory remapped sectors in the area that is tested. Remember that when you get a drive back from RMA it was most likely someone else's bad drive that was repaired. Or are you talking about hdtune type benchmarking?
Yes to the last question. And I compared them when they were both empty. So it means a faulty drive got repaired and they sent me that crap? Damn... as if it was my fault they sent a broken one in the first place. I'm even sadder because the new one wasn't even defective, it just had a minor "problem" that I read is very common among some drives from WD. I should've spent the 80$ on charity not on this crap.If you are doing a fair test. I mean comparing benchmarks on drives that are equally full. It could be that the RMA has factory remapped sectors in the area that is tested. Remember that when you get a drive back from RMA it was most likely someone else's bad drive that was repaired. Or are you talking about hdtune type benchmarking?
Anyways, HDtune says the newer drive has about 141-142MB/s while the older one had 148-149MB/s. They have the same firmware, they're the same model, same everything according to HDTune. WD10EZEX-00BN5A0
Last edited:
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
So it means a faulty drive got repaired and they sent me that crap? Damn... as if it was my fault they sent a broken one in the first place.
There is no guaranty that the drive you get back from an RMA will be better (or even as good) than the one you send them. This is why I recommend only sending in a drive when you thoroughly tested and verified that it is bad (a few reallocated sectors is not necessarily bad).
I'll keep that in mind next time I do this, I never RMA'd a HDD before, usually they lasted until after their warranty, so I have no experience with this.There is no guaranty that the drive you get back from an RMA will be better (or even as good) than the one you send them. This is why I recommend only sending in a drive when you verified that it is bad (a few reallocated sectors is not necissarily bad).
So there's no way to find out if this is a crappy refurbished driive? it's the same model, same everything, but the speed is a bit lower than the one I RMA'd. Maybe I got lucky and they sent a new one because it's a new, popular product?
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
It would have rectified printed on the label if it was repaired.
on the HDD itself? I'll take a look...It would have rectified printed on the label if it was repaired.
Thanks for your help!
I don't see anything like that on the label. I looked for "refurbished" "rectified" "recertified". Does this mean it's new? I did send it back the day I got it, maybe they took that into account and sent a new one.It would have rectified printed on the label if it was repaired.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
That is a possibility. If the repair facility does not have any recirtified drives in stock you get a new one. Although in that case I am not sure why it would perform worse. However this is not that big of a difference.
I was wondering why it's slower than another drive that was the same model and had the same firmware, what's wrong with this question? Sorry if I made you angry.I don't see the problem here. All hard drives are slow. What did you expect?
sometimes hdtune can be pretty crappy with it's benching. I've had different results benching the same drive ffs.
either way, it's a tiny tiny difference and you're just peeling hairs apart now... just roll with it.
also, last time i RMAd a drive i got a larger one back, and they sent two by mistake. which was nice.
either way, it's a tiny tiny difference and you're just peeling hairs apart now... just roll with it.
also, last time i RMAd a drive i got a larger one back, and they sent two by mistake. which was nice.
It is not unusual to see a ~5% variation in sequential performance between drives of the same make/model(/fw). (Firmware version has negligible effect on seq performance.)I RMA'd a drive and got one that's on average about 8-10MB/s slower. Is this normal? I'm planning to make it a OS drive.
The seq performance for a particular sample of a drive is totally determined during the factory low-level formatting of that drive. Variations [in seq performance] (between samples) is introduced (by that formatting procedure) based on (measured) variations (in quality) of the platter surfaces, [and, to a lesser extent, the heads].
--UhClem
Thank you for your very informative answer! That's what I wanted to know! I don't care about the difference but I was curious about that difference. I also saw my same HDD model get 200MB/s based on other people's benchmarks, so I was just wondering why these differences exist considering how precisely built a HDD is.It is not unusual to see a ~5% variation in sequential performance between drives of the same make/model(/fw). (Firmware version has negligible effect on seq performance.)
The seq performance for a particular sample of a drive is totally determined during the factory low-level formatting of that drive. Variations [in seq performance] (between samples) is introduced (by that formatting procedure) based on (measured) variations (in quality) of the platter surfaces, [and, to a lesser extent, the heads].
--UhClem