WD Green Power WD10EADS vs WD10EACS

[frank2003]

WD10EADS is the updated version of the old 1TB model (WD10EACS). On paper the new model uses 3 platters vs 4, 32MB vs 16MB cache, is supposed to draw less power, and runs cooler and quieter. So it's a better drive in all respects.

So with great excitement I replaced my WD10EACS (from a retail kit WD10000CSRTL) with the WD10EADS. I was hoping to see notebook drive-like power consumptions. To my disappointment, I actually saw a slight increase in power consumption (about 1W). The DS is supposed to draw 2.4W/5.4W (idle/read-write) vs the CS's 4W/7.5W. So what gives?

To add to the confusion, WD's product page now is saying the WD10EACS (http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?DriveID=336) as drawing the same power as the WD10EADS (http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=559)!

Anyone else upgraded the GP 1TB from the old 16mb cache model model to the new 32MB model and noticed any power draw savings?

[Auroa]

FWIW, Tom's gets lower power consumption with the newer 1TB drive.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hdd ... 77-13.html

[Vicotnik]

WD10EADS is the updated version of the old 1TB model (WD10EACS). On paper the new model uses 3 platters vs 4, 32MB vs 16MB cache, is supposed to draw less power, and runs cooler and quieter. So it's a better drive in all respects.

The current version of WD10EACS also has three platters, so the amount of cache is the only difference really.

I have six of the WD10EACS GPs. Since I use them for storage the amount of cache isn't that important and WD10EACS is usually a little bit cheaper so..

[nutball]

I'm curious, what did you do with the old drive?

[frank2003]

The current version of WD10EACS also has three platters, so the amount of cache is the only difference really.

That's interesting. I thought WD10EADS replaced the WD10EACS. Any idea when the WD10EACS/16MB changed from 4 platters to 3?

[frank2003]

I'm curious, what did you do with the old drive?

My old drives that are "unfit" for 24/7 online uses are relegated to off-line/archiving duties. I put them in a disk draw/caddy system on a server; they are brought online only on a need-to basis.

Here's an example of a draw/caddy system (you need one on the PC):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6817998005

Extra caddy (need one for each disk):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6817998019

[frank2003]

FWIW, Tom's gets lower power consumption with the newer 1TB drive.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hdd ... 77-13.html

Thanks for the link. The idle consumption numbers reported by Tom's for both the WD10EACS and WD10EADS are in line with the specs. So I'm really puzzled as to why I'm not seeing any power reduction when I switched from WD10EACS to WD10EADS. Maybe there are other factors in play.

From this thread it appears the WD10EACS went from 4 to 3 platters sometime after Sept. 2008. From the pictures there I can confirm I have the older WD10EACS.

[line]

From this thread it appears the WD10EACS went from 4 to 3 platters sometime after Sept. 2008. From the pictures there I can confirm I have the older WD10EACS.

The first batch came out as early as May 08 (here's the first news item on it) but the transition was slow as 4-platter drives continued to be produced in parallel for many months afterwards.