Western Digital EARS vs. EADS

[Trypt]

Does anyone know the diff between these two drives?

They are all 1.5TB

WD15EADS (http://canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=022407&cid=HDD.443.877)

WD15EARS (http://canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=027661&cid=HDD.443.877)

Is there a diff? They are pretty much the same price, so I'm totally confused! Whats the spin rate of these anyway?

Also, besides the two on top, would this one be in the same league, or even better: http://canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=019453&cid=HDD.443.877

This one is Seagate Baraccuda 7200rpm. Now, I would rather have a WD, but if this drive is better then the two above, let me know.

Any other 1.5TB competition for me to think about before I buy?

I also saw a Hitachi Deskstar 2TB that is only about $30 more.. How are these drives?

 

[jmdixon85]

Looks like the WD15EADS has 32MB cache where the other has 64MB

I ONLY use WD drives but thats just me

 

[Psykoikonov]

From what I can tell looking on another site the EADS has 32MB of cache, while the EARS has 64MB of cache. Both are "green" drives which spin at 5400RPM.

 

[glorp]

The EARS models use the new WD 4K block sizes vs. old standard 512 byte blocks. Beware. They need special handling to use with XP class OS (WHS/Server 2003) and Linux.

 

[Trypt]

Yes, I only use WD drives as well, if only due to their amazing return policy, which allows you to get a new drive from them with a box, THEN you send them your defective drive, allowing you to save any data that you may need onto the new drive. Amazing policy. I still have a 640GB Seagate here that doesn't work right, and I just can't get myself to send it back. If Seagate had that same policy, I'd have a new drive by now. Beacuse of that I refuse to buy Seagates.

Any idea what the real world diff is between 32 and 64MB cache on a 1.5TB drive?

 

[Trypt]

glorp, but they are ok with Win 7 and any new 64 bit OS?

 

[glorp]

Yes. Vista and later are fine. You can use them on older OS but they need to have a jumper set on the back and/or repartioned/aligned. Take a look at the user reviews at newegg and this Knowledge Base article at WD.

 

[Trypt]

I think I'll go for the WD15EARS 64MB cache, even tho I doubt there would be any diff in real world performance. But it's only $5 more, so why not.

 

[BossBorot]

My area of expertise currently is 1.5tb hdds, see sig, and there truly is no short answer of which drive is the best.

Personally I consider the older WD drives to be better. The block size creates issues with certain operating systems and there is no way to get TLER on the newer drives (you would have to buy used to get this). Due to this I wouldn't buy a EARS over EADS. Furthermore even though the EARS has more cache it doesn't perform any better, in fact it performs worse.

Right now WD is largely avoided by people building large storage servers with tons of drives. Not only do they typically cost more, but they are currently having issues timing out of raid arrays (partly due to dropping TLER), and are considered to be the least reliable 1.5tb drives currently.

Right now the most popular drives amongst those who build large storage servers, the people who I consider the most knowledgeable in regards to hdds, are the Hitachi drives (1TB and 2TB drives) and the Samsung F2 1.5tb.

The Samsung drives are quiet and cool running but have issues due to being 5400rpm. However you don't run into any of these issues if you are not raiding them.

The Hitachi drives are fast but also run loud and put of a great deal of heat due to being 7200rpm. These drives are the best option for large raid systems.

For your intended usage I would go for the 1.5tb Samsung F2

 

[Trypt]

Boss, thanks for the info, I just checked out the Samsung F2, and it does seem like a great drive. I don't think 5400rpm is a problem, the drive will be used for storage and playback of movies, I don't need to transfer tons of data on regular intervals. The only problem is that my local store doesn't carry Samsung, but I can always buy from NCIX, which is my online supplier.

This Samsung? http://ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=45370&vpn=HD154UI&manufacture=Samsung

So, no to the Seagate 1.5?

 

[Trypt]

I just read that Samsung has some serious warranty issues. I think I better steer clear of Samsung. Read my above post (tops), warranty procedures are the very reason why I stick to WD, if I do have a problem, RMA is easy as pie and I even get to keep my defective drive until the new one gets here!

 

[glorp]

+1 for Boss' recommendation. The Samsung F2 1.5TB are an excellent choice. 5400RPM is fine for media storage playback and you surely won't notice a difference because of a 32/64MB cache for that. The only issue with Samsung is that it's RMA process is a little less transparent than WD. Not much tracking or information when you RMA a Samsung but it gets done quickly. I just had to RMA one.

I would certainly avoid Seagate's 7200.11 1.5TB.