GP/low-power drive wattages & specs for each manuf

WD1000FYPS is also a GP drive. I use 8 until I ru out of space or 2TB ones don't break the bank!
It is older, and more or less same as 1000EACS but still here. :)
 
XS Janus said:
WD1000FYPS is also a GP drive. I use 8 until I ru out of space or 2TB ones don't break the bank!
It is older, and more or less same as 1000EACS but still here. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, it's impossible to find some discontinued drives on these websites unless there is a model number. I'll add this.

I've also just linked all drives to their respective pages. I'm in the process of adding links to reviews on many of the drives.
 
I found info on WD20EVDS
Sending via PM.
Looks like the series is meant for AV systems and has a broad range of drives 160GB-2TB
A bit more expensive than EADS, and has bigger power consumption in idle...
 
Added WD 2.5" drives since they are at 1tb.

Seems like Ockie was hinting at a new low power 'template' beyond the Norco 4020/4220 formula and I suspect this was part of it.
 
WD disappoints in real world idle. And WOW I can't believe how much faster Seagate LP is in File creation test.
Now the question rises how important is that test for RAID5 on a day to day fileserver usage? :)
I know the idle power draw certainly has my attention now...
 
Keep in mind that the GP is 5400rpm and the LP is 5900rpm, a 9.25% increase in rotational speed.
 
[LYL]Homer;1034759893 said:
Keep in mind that the GP is 5400rpm and the LP is 5900rpm, a 9.25% increase in rotational speed.
Click to expand...

There isnt really any evidence of that. WD says (right on their site!) the green drives "each drive uses a unique non-variable RPM between 5400 and 7200"
 
Last edited:
Old Hippie said:
The 1TB has been mathematically show to be 5400RPM and I can't imagine why the rest would be any different.

We have to take a different approach when assessing the Caviar GP's seek time since WD does not explicitly give users the drive's spindle speed. The GP turns in a measured access time of 15.0 ms, a score that lags the 7200-RPM WD7500AAKS by a significant margin. The WD7500AAKS's measured seek time when accounting for 4.2 ms of 7200 RPM latency is 9.5 ms (missing the firm's claim by over half a millisecond). Assuming the GP also shares such a seek time, that leaves us with 15 ms [measured access time] minus 9.5 ms [assumed seek time] which equals 5.5 ms, almost exactly the rotational latency associated with a 5400 RPM spindle speed.

I've always thought of IntelliPower as a wiz-bang-magic-keyword from the marketing dept. that deludes people into thinking these drives actually change speeds.

As always, YMMV. :D
Click to expand...

Old Hippie posted this earlier, I tend not to buy into the variable thing. I think it's probably fixed at a lower speed and the rest is marketing.
 
Added WD10EARS, WD15EARS, WD20EARS and link to Anand article on WD's Advanced Format.
 
I only see a bunch of similar speculation when I googled it, and Samsung's site has no announcements yet. I e-mailed their marketing dept however.

Using Samsung's model number sequence I did turn up this:

HD153WI (Note that it says "SATA3".)

Assuming some naming conventions, no results for HD503WI (500gb) or HD103WI (1tb).

It does seem the "WI" series is 5400rpm and 32mb cache.
 
Strange the drive is all over the price check webs, but not on official page. Typical Samsung... hahaha!
 
Why are these so different? The 2TB and 1.5TB flavors are identical between the EADS and EARS revisions.
Code: 
WD10EARS         1tb    5.4      5.4    WD Green, 5400rpm, 64mb, 3yr 
WD10EADS         1tb    5.4      2.8    WD Green, 5400rpm, 32mb, 3yr 1 2
 
EARS is newer and uses new Western Digital 'Advanced Format'
Instead of each individual sector having its own Sync/header and ECC, the new format will move to larger physical sectors, in this case 4k. This results in an overall net gain in storage efficiency, so much so that Western Digital was able to save on wasted space even after shifting to a larger ECC block size. Larger ECC is a good thing, as Error Correcting Code is used to detect and correct bit errors that occur within each physical sector. The new ECC block size should translate to a 50% improvement in error correction ability.
Click to expand...
http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=8113
 
XS Janus said:
EARS is newer and uses new Western Digital 'Advanced Format'

http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=8113
Click to expand...

Yes we know this, that doesn't explain the power discrepancy in WD's numbers.

Look at the power numbers for:

WD20EADS vs. WD20EARS - they are the same
WD15EADS vs. WD15EARS - they are the same
WD10EADS vs. WD10EARS - Idle power on EARS is twice as high?

Gotta be a typo or something.
 
I had to redo my WHS box and followed the install with a Kill A Watt attached. I noticed that 1tb EACS drives connected into the mobo only showed a bump of 3w per drive, but moving a drive to the Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 would bump the wattage up an additional 3w per drive. According to the specs in the OP my 8 drives beyond the OS drive (which is hooked into the mobo) should consume 30.5w (which correlates to my readings). This means that the SM card with 8 drives connected is using 20.5w at idle! The SM card with no drives attached was adding 5w at idle.

Here's the full specs of my system now:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035144663&postcount=86
 
[LYL]Homer;1035144698 said:
I had to redo my WHS box and followed the install with a Kill A Watt attached. I noticed that 1tb EACS drives connected into the mobo only showed a bump of 3w per drive, but moving a drive to the Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 would bump the wattage up an additional 3w per drive. According to the specs in the OP my 8 drives beyond the OS drive (which is hooked into the mobo) should consume 30.5w (which correlates to my readings). This means that the SM card with 8 drives connected is using 20.5w at idle! The SM card with no drives attached was adding 5w at idle.

Here's the full specs of my system now:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035144663&postcount=86
Click to expand...
very interesting
 
I havent noticed that on my 3ware 9650... It added about 10W to the system, but each drive connected added only ~4W each. nothing more :I
 
No, but it's in the 'for comparison' section instead of with the other GP drives.
 
This is a very handy list. I was looking over it to see how much power my drives were using in my server and noticed that you didn't have a couple of them. I am trying to find all of the information for you to include if you see fit and will send it along in a PM.
 
I still don't get the Hitachi 2TB drives...
what are the main differences? looks like Ultrastar uses less power...
But it costs a fortune like RE4 from WD...
 
Handy list. Im wondering if it is feasible to include peak startup power consumption as well? Im actually not sure where you would even get that data, as most manufacturers dont seem to list it. It might be relevant for those who have a ton of hard drives and are worried about if their power supply can handle it.
 
I wonder if there is a typical factor of power that could be used as a rule of thumb for this, or a range. i.e. something like "startup is 1.2-1.3x the read/write wattage".

I just looked at a few random drives and didn't see startup wattages.
 
Updated with WD30EZRS and WD25EZRS. It's been a while since I've updated this, let me know if there are any other drives out there to add - probably 2tb ones. I'm not counting the Seagate 3tb drive yet since it is an external.

Edit: finally found the Samsung F4EG data sheet, model HD204UI. Updated some of the other drives in the Samsung lineup.
 
Last edited:
Don't think you've got the WD20EARS-00MVWB0 yet.
More dense (677) platters than the original 2TB.
Thanks for your efforts though!
 
excellent list.

as has been said before, how do we get this made sticky?

worth adding a link to my thread on watts per TB in the "related articles" section?

perhaps add a few select 2.5inch "laptop" drives???
 
jalyst said:
Don't think you've got the WD20EARS-00MVWB0 yet.
More dense (677) platters than the original 2TB.
Thanks for your efforts though!
Click to expand...

I do have the WD20EARS, and as far as I know WD does not distinguish in their specs for power, etc. between different platter configurations. I don't seem to be able to find a full review of the two models compared other than some superficial observations. If you do have a review link post it here and I'll add it as a footnote.

Aposium -

What size do you propose? 500gb and up? I presume large capacity SSD's are beyond the scope of this.

(WD does have the 1tb Scorpio BLue and Samsung has the HM100UI that are both 12.5mm in height instead of the standard 9.5mm size. I would break out the 12.5mm drives from the 9.5mm ones.)
 
This turned into a great reference chart.

Great job and Thanks [LYL]Homer! (Big Thumbs Up!)
 
[LYL]Homer;1036317797 said:
I do have the WD20EARS, and as far as I know WD does not distinguish in their specs for power, etc. between different platter configurations. I don't seem to be able to find a full review of the two models compared other than some superficial observations. If you do have a review link post it here and I'll add it as a footnote.
Click to expand...

Not sure what two specific models you're referring to....
But there's definitely about 3 iterations of 2TB EARS floating around
http://vr-zone.com/articles/667gb-p...l-caviar-green-2tb-wd20ears-00mvwb0/9335.html
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?p=12142994#post12142994
http://forums.techarena.in/hardware-peripherals/1362012.htm

-00MVWB0 was the latest/greatest platter density until the Green 2.5 & 3TB were recently announced :(
And it would have performance/power advances over the earlier 2TB EARS.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top