Mwave - Western Digital Caviar GP WD10EACS, 1TB (1000GB) HDD For Only $149.95

Related Stores

Mwave Australia

• 

  JPOWER on 16/01/2009 - 12:06

  +1

  Nice price.

• 

  ljiljana on 16/01/2009 - 12:18

  +2

  Not bad as long as you're in pick-up range because if you look on static ice they're all about the same price range. You could even get a Seagate from IT Estate for $158.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 16/01/2009 - 12:32

  +2

  Everyone considering this should know this is from the GREEN range from WD. This means it uses less power, makes less noise, but is also considerably slower than it's competitors. The slowness is the reason it's cheaper than it's Caviar Black and Blue alternatives.

  It is still good value as a storage drive, but I wouldn't be using it as the main drive of any modern system unless you're a fan of longer load times.

  • 

    bargainy on 16/01/2009 - 12:40

    Unsubstantiated nonsense. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2206422,00.asp

    I use four of these drives in a readynas nv+ and they are sweet. I would also use them as main drive in a system with no hesitation.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 16/01/2009 - 12:45

      +1

      It's not unsubstantiated, the review you link says quite clearly pretty much exactly what I did "While the WD10's performance won't amaze, the relatively quiet and cool operation, plus the great price will appeal to users looking for good value."

      Now you might get a bit defensive about it, and I've clarified below based on which model, but exactly what part of my post do you disagree with?

      EDIT I would agree that my language in the post is too strong though. It's not nearly as big a difference as what my post gives the impression of.

      EDIT2 Another review that concludes the same: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3161&p=10

      Passing judgment on the Western Digital Caviar GP is a little bit more difficult. Clearly, its performance is less than stellar; the redeeming feature of the Seagate drive is only that it turns in better results than the Western Digital drive. The Caviar GP, however, is not about pure performance. This drive is about running as efficiently as possible, and it does an excellent job in this regard. In situations where a lot of storage is needed, power consumption is at a premium, and noise is a major enemy (read: HTPC setups), the Western Digital Caviar GP may indeed be a very good choice.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 16/01/2009 - 12:41

    Hmm, this may or may not be true.

    I'm referring to the original 5,400rpm drives which were quite slow.

    There are now at least two, maybe three or even four versions of this drive out. The 5400rpm version, the 7200rpm 16MB 4 platter version, the 7200rpm 16MB 3 platter version and the 7200rpm 32mb version.

    The last two are good performers, the first two are very bad to bad/average respectively.

    Since this is a 7200rpm 16MB cache drive it could be either the 3 or 4 platter version. If Mwave could clear up which it is, I'll happily retract my above statement about performance (should it be the right one :P).

    • 

      SmartCover on 16/01/2009 - 12:53

      dude you work for a law firm?

    • 

      elcheapo on 16/01/2009 - 12:54

      I've been informed that since November 2008, most 7200rpm 16MB is now the 3 platters version.

    • 

      bargainy on 16/01/2009 - 12:55

      No idea why mwave claims these are 7200rpm as as far as I am aware they are all 5400rpm including the drives I purchased when they were first released as well as additional drives purchased more recently.

      They do lag behind some of the faster 7200rpm drives but I'd suggest the difference is noticeable in benchmarks, not real use and the lower noise, temperature and power are significant benefits.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 16/01/2009 - 13:00

        Sooooo tempted to write "Unsubstantiated nonsense".

        Ah crap, I gave into temptation :P

        Yeah, there have been at least three, possibly four versions of this drive. All with the same WD10EACS model number and Western Digital Caviar GreenPower/GP series name. Nice and confusing, as all hardware manufacturers love to be with their naming.

        You'll note on their website they list no RPM at all, but list either 16MB or 32MB for the cache. Which means there's at bare minimum two versions.

        • 

          bargainy on 16/01/2009 - 13:03

          @[Deactivated]: The 32mb cache version is the WD10EADS.

          • 

            [Deactivated] on 16/01/2009 - 13:06

            @bargainy: When you're right, you're right. My mistake.

            Here's a little bit about the 5400rpm and 7200rpm: http://www.mikhailtech.com/Reviews/Western_Digital/Western_D…

            Western Digital claims the drive is 5400 - 7200 RPM. Many on the web have speculated that this means the drive dynamically adjusts the RPM based on load. However, Western Digital has recently come forward announcing that this means some drives run at 5400RPM, while others run at 7200RPM. The drive that is being tested today is 5400RPM.

            • 

              bargainy on 16/01/2009 - 13:28

              @[Deactivated]: A rather long winded explanation regarding the misconception around 7200rpm which WD used to show on their web site but have subsequently removed most traces: http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?s=ea072766b750af9f….

              In summary, WD had argued that intellipower provided the equivalent performance of 7200rpm but since the rotational speed is fixed they retracted the statement to avoid any misrepresentation.

              • 

                [Deactivated] on 16/01/2009 - 14:20

                @bargainy: Good lord, what a tangled web WD weave. Although the cries of class action in that thread are a bit of an over reaction. It would have been nice if WD had cleared things up and set the record straight publicly with a simple press release though (although I suppose they were worried it'd prompt people to overreact).

                So now the question is - are there two different 5400 versions, 3 platter and 4 platter, or is the 4 platter the only one and the 32MB WD10EADS is the only one with 3 platters?

                • 

                  camelgrass on 16/01/2009 - 14:21

                  @[Deactivated]: What's the difference between the 2 Green Power drives here?

                  http://umart.com.au/pro/products_listnew.phtml?id=10&bid=2&i…

                  • 

                    [Deactivated] on 16/01/2009 - 15:40

                    @camelgrass: One's the RE "Raid Edition". There's some contention over what the actual physical drive difference is, but in general it's meant to be more reliable and optimised for RAID arrays.

                    The RE is listed as heavier on the WD site so presumably there is a parts difference, although that weight is listed for all GP drives not specifically the 1TB one and since we know there are 3 platter vs 4 platter drives and smaller 500GB 2 (or possibly 3, didn't bother checking) platter drives you'd think they'd have different weights so that may mean nothing. The RE lists as "4 disk" aka platter, the WD10EACS is listing in the specs "3/6 disk/head" but as we know it started off as a 4 disk… so I guess that weight difference makes sense.

                    The RE lists a 1.2M hr MTBF whereas the WD10EACS doesn't list any, so shrug

                    The RE have a slightly better shock rating.

                    Well, you get the idea.

                    Slightly different, RE edition includes features that apparently give it better performance in server/workstation style situations. Of course we won't know the practical difference until a bunch of places test the drive (and even then we can't necessarily trust their info because as you saw above it was a bit of a mish-mash of assumption on many reviewers parts anyway).

  • 

    gabbyh on 16/01/2009 - 15:50

    Review here with access times and transfer rates http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0%2C2
    Single user performance tests here http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0%2C3

• 

  gabbyh on 16/01/2009 - 14:56

  Why is there no type of Australia Post delivery offered when purchasing? Would far prefer this to any courier company.

  • 

    Store RepMwave @ Mwave Australia on 16/01/2009 - 14:59

    Sorry, we have changed Aus Post to Australian Air Express.

    Because Australian Air Express offer better tracking services, less damage parcels and less lost shipments and most important better customer service to our customers =)

    • 

      gabbyh on 16/01/2009 - 15:09

      Thanks for the info. Given AAE charge considerably more than AusPost I suppose they have to do something to add value and thus justify the extra expense. There is no way AusPost could have charged $21.31 for 3-4 day delivery of one hard drive. Looks like IPEC is going to get a lot more work from you now.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 16/01/2009 - 17:02

  -3

  these drives are slow as shit, don't waste your $$$$

  • 

    BlinkyBill on 17/01/2009 - 17:24

    +1

    bollocks! I picked up one these drives a while ago and I see 80 MB/sec writes to the drive. Hardly slow for drive that is cheap and quiet.

• 

  dabhbl on 16/01/2009 - 18:27

  If your in Perth netplus.com.au is better since the shipping is about $15, whereas you can pick up the drive from netplus

  $154 - http://www.netplus.com.au/products-detail.asp?code=HD4&cat=H…

• 

  SilentH on 17/01/2009 - 16:47

  I don't think this deserves a negative vote because these drives are very cheap and worth letting people know about them but a simple search of staticice (http://staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=1tb+-case+-cadd…) will give you a bunch of cheaper priced 1TB hdds where you don't have to pay p&h. Should all these drives be posted on ozbargain? I would think not, or atleast the other places with the same or cheaper hdds should be added to the post.

  These drives are cheap and nasty and i would only recommend them for offline storage of backups.

• 

  MrGareth on 17/01/2009 - 20:30

  Guys, these drives are NOT as slow as you'd think. Because the platter density is so high, even if they have a slower rotational speed, they are still fast. You have to take it in the following perspective:

  Yes, they are slower than current generation 7,200rpm drives. But these new 5,400rpm "Green Power" drives are generally faster than the older generation 7,200rpm drives (because of their high platter density).

  For example, I had a machine with two hard drives:

  • 320Gb 7,200rpm Seagate HD (a year and a half old I think)
  • 640Gb 5,400rpm WD "Green Power" (GP) HD

  The GP drive is quite a bit faster, and also quieter, and runs a bit cooler.

• 

  Icy on 21/01/2009 - 17:55

  Just skip the whole green confusion and get the $200 caviar black 1TB with 5 year warranty instead, much better…

  • 

    Davo1111 on 22/01/2009 - 12:09

    it's only $50 more expensive…