Western Digital Scorpio Blue WD5000BEVT 500GB 2.5? HDD ? Review and Benchmarks

Introduction
Western Digital have just released the 500GB 2.5” WD5000BEVT and Overclockers.co.uk were one of the first suppliers in UK to get stocks. This is the first 250GB per platter 2.5” HDD to reach the customers. Other manufacturers have released 500GB 2.5” drives, but they have used 3 platters. How does this new HDD perform? WD is also claiming new features such as WhisperDrive and Intelliseek, which claim to reduce power consumption and noise.

I first tested the WD5000BEVT in an Icybox enclosure with eSATA port so I could also measure the power consumption (after making allowance for the power consumed by the enclosure). Other tests were carried out after installation.



Manufacturer’s specifications
Rotational Speed 5,400 RPM
Buffer Size 8 MB
Average Latency 5.50 ms
Read Seek Time 12.0 ms
Track-To-Track Seek Time 2.0 ms (average)
Formatted Capacity 500,107 MB (which means 465GB)
Interface SATA 3 Gb/s

Physical Data
Height 9.5 mm / 0.374 inches
Length 100.2mm / 3.94 inches
Width 69.85mm / 2.75 inches
Weight 0.117 kg / 0.26 Pounds (Actual weight = 0.097kg)

Power Requirements at 5 VDC
Read/Write 500 mA / 2.50 Watts
Idle 400 mA / 0.85 Watts
Standby 50 mA / 0.25 Watts
Sleep 20 mA / 0.10 Watts

The WD specifications do not include the disk-to-buffer transfer rate which is one of the key performance indicators.

HD Tune
I used the HD Tune Pro trial so that I could get both read and write test results.


After installation in the computer I reran the normal HD Tune test, this time setting the CPU to maximal performance in RMClock (which sorted out the apparently high CPU utilisation - evidently calculated relative to current CPU speed)


HD Tach
Another popular hard disk benchmark. See how the WD5000BEVT compares with my current Fujitsu MHZ2320BH. This test using the enclosure.


I also reran HD Tach after installation in the computer: No significant difference.


SiSoftware Sandra

The physical disc read test:


The physical disc write test (interesting drop at the end):


The file system benchmark:


Also h2benchw, for comparison with the results at Tom's Hardware:


And the two hard drive related tests in PCMark05:


Power and Temperature
What doesn't show in those results is the power consumption. My meter was reading no more than 0.61A during the benchmarking. The enclosure without the HDD uses 0.09A which means the HDD is pulling 0.52A. At 5V, that means 2.6W (which is consistent with the specifications). In contrast the Fujitsu MHZ2320BH uses at least 0.15A (0.75W) more power under the same conditions. The lowest power consumption I have observed for the WD5000BEVT is around 0.1A (=0.5W) which is similar to the other HDDs I have measured.

The other indicator of lower power consumption is the actually drive operating temperature. Now it is installed in my Dell E6400 I am observing a temperature of 37 to 38°C, which is 2°C lower than I was seeing yesterday with the Fujitsu MHZ2320BH.

Results Summary Table

OLE_LINK2Benchmark	WD5000BEVT	MHZ2320BH	WD2500BEVS	HM160HI
HD Tune				Internal/External
Maximum transfer rate (MB/s)	79.5	63.6 / 64	58.1	64.9 / 58.7
Minimum transfer rate (MB/s)	38.9	29.1 / 31.1	29.3	32.6 / 32.9
Average transfer rate (MB/s)	61.6	50.3 / 50.9	45.3	52.2 / 49.8
Access time (ms)	16.8	17.4 / 17.3	17.6	20.4 / 20.4
Burst rate (MB/s)	98.4	74.0 / 70.2	49.1	68.3/ 56.1
SiSoftware Sandra
Physical disk read index (MB/s)	61.33	50.05	45.33	52.5
Physical disk read access time (ms)	14	17	14	19
Physical disk write index (MB/s)	60.68	43.73
Physical disk write access time (ms)	2 (!)	8
HDtach
Average read (MB/s)	64.3	52.6	46.5	52.9
Random access (ms)	16.2	17.4	17.4	20.0
Burst speed (MB/s)	192.7	160	105.4	90.1
H2benchw
Maximum read transfer rate (MB/s)	76.8	63.42	57.55	/ 67.13
Average read transfer rate (MB/s)	59.2	49.12	44.0	/ 50.88
Minimum read transfer rate (MB/s)	38.8	31.5	29.22	/ 32.80
Maximum write transfer rate (MB/s)	76.8
Average write transfer rate (MB/s)	59.2
Minimum write transfer rate (MB/s)	38.8
Random access time (ms)	16.8	17.6	17.8	/ 20.6
Interface performance (MB/s)	152.5	86.5	68.9	/ 94.27
PCMark05
Windows XP startup (MB/s)	8.34			7.93
File writing performance (MB/s)	5.08			4.82
Power Consumption
Maximum power consumption	0.52A / 2.6W	0.66A / 3.3W	0.66A / 3.3W	0.6A / 3.0W
Minimum power consumption	0.1A / 0.5W	0.1A / 0.5W	0.14A / 0.7W	0.1A / 0.5W

Conclusions
Western Digital have provided an excellent combination of increased capacity, better performance and excellent power consumption. While the transfer rates do not beat those provided by the 320GB 7200rpm HDDs, they are comfortably ahead of the other 5400rpm HDDs. The access times are also good and power consumption excellent.

John

 

Very interesting read John. Good work by WD, the acces times are lower than the WD3200BEVT.

The transferrates are not as high as posted here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=305890&page=3
Maybe something to do with the CPU utilization?

If you could run PC Mark 05 in XP I would appreciate it.

 

Pretty good scores, but the HD tune score is kinda low. Wasn't what I expected.
Thanks for the review John.

 

awesome!
where did you get the hard drive from?

 

Han check out the scores posted by kaltmond here.

 

John, thanks this is great stuff. I never really knew hard disks could be tested this way.

 

Awesome drive, I think one of these will find its way into my EEE when they become cheap.

May find some of the black editions in my G50V I love WD drives.

Id assume with only 2 platter its the same size as the standard 2.5" drive and thus no compatibility issues like other larger drives suffer in some notebooks.

 

Nice HDD. Waiting for the faster 7200RPMs.

It has the same height of 9.5mm as the other mainstream HDDs. No compatibility issues.

 

I will rerun the HD Tune read test when I've got the HDD installed internally. It is possible that CPU utilisation is a cause, not effect. I'm doing other things on the computer so the utilisation is an indicator of overall usage.

I'll be running the PCMark05 tests once I get the HDD installed internally (I'm planning to clone my present HDD overnight).

I think this means that WD have got a lot of the extra capacity by increasing the track density rather than just increasing the bits per track.

Overclockers.co.uk.

For a change, the UK seems to have got a share of the product launch, rather than several months later (that HDD is less than two weeks old).

John

 

Impressive score, I would have expected it outperform my 320 7200.3 though.

Sorry I misread that it was benchmarked via eSata. I would assume the score is high once installed inside???

 

I will rerun the read benchmarks once it is internal. The write benchmarks need an empty disc, hence the initial testing in an external enclosure.

John

 

Wow, the benchmarks are nice. Its not outperforming the 7200 320gb drives, but for the capacity its really impressive.

Kamin likey

Thanks for the review. I cant wait until they are more readily available

 

I have updated the original post with more information.

I have also moved the graphics to another server. I am having trouble today seeing the images I posted using FreeImageHosting.net yesterday.

The fix for the apparently high CPU utilisation in HD Tune is to set the CPU to maximum performance. It appears that the program calculates the utilisation based on the current CPU speed which, by default, is in the SFFM mode.

John

 

Thanks for the PC Mark results.

I stopped using them because of similar problems.

 

I guess I don't have to goto the trouble of benchmarking my drive now, you beat me too it, nice results.

Mine does feel as fast as the 7200rpm scorpio black in my wind, although in reality it probably isn't, but not by much though.

 

I guess the 500GB comes with a 3year guarantee compared to the 5years of the 320GB bekt, right?

That's a problem, along with the price.
In my country the 320GB bekt costs 80euros now.
The 500GB bevt hasn't appeared yet, but I really doubt it will cost less than 140euros

 

It would be nice if you could post your HD Tune results though.

There have been 2 now. One showing a maximum transferrate of 86 mb/sec, the other 79,6 mb/sec.

I believe the 86 mb/sec is really close to the 7200rpm scorpio.

 

Question if you had three of them in RAID 0 would it the AVG read/write be
61 * 3 = 183 AVG read/write for the RAID?

 

I wonder if the new WD 400GB drives use the same platters, just limited to 200GB?

 

Interesting point that the Blue has shorter warranty than the Black. However, my HDDs usually end up in the off line backup system well before three years.

I am unable to get my WD5000BEVT to go any faster, either for the transfer rate or interface, so more results from others would be interesting.

Most likely it is the same mechanism and platters, perhaps using platters which have some defects which are then excluded.

John

 

Hmm ether seagate makes a killer 250gb drive or something is going on lol. I just ran HDTune on my EEE with a Seagate Momentus 5400.4 5400rpm drive and got really good results. I need to find valid WD Black scores now to compare too.



Cpu usage low too, and this is on a 1.2ghz single core atom.

 

Getting slightly off topic here, but try some of the other benchmarks that I used.

John

 

I'm picking up two of these bad boys for my dell 1720. Going to be upgrading my CPU soon as well.


Can I get some help finding this product? I was looking through reviews from overclockers and they all seemed to agree that they had terrible customer service and none of the buyers recommended using overclockers. So needless to say, I will not be purchasing from there. is there any other site that has this HD?

 

Yeah I dont want to derail anything, but its nice to know where it stands performance wise compared to other drives, and if there is a fault in it and it should be performing better we want to shake it till the problem falls out.

I may get the time to run some benches later, if you want I can make a separate topic, like a mini reivew of my hdd and then we can just cross reference.

 

Here ya go:
http://www.it247.com/Product/250-WD...s&campaign=pricegrabber&utm_medium=HardDrives
http://www.lambda-tek.com/componentshop/index.pl?origin=gbase9.3&prodID=B145547

Edit: I don't know if they offer better service, but they have them in stock.

 

I bought several things from Overclockers during the past few years. I haven't had problems causing me to want to return anything which is the test for customer service.

However, when I ordered my WD5000BEVT late last Thursday it had not shipped that day. On Friday I saw the price had dropped so I emailed customer service who adjusted the price on my order.

Another UK source is Dabs.com. Or there's span.com.

John

 

I guess I'm just going to have to wait until it's over here in the US. Those two sites didn't ship to the US unfortunately. It can't be too much longer before it comes over here so I'll just be patient.

 

vicious, run sisandra, pcmark and such on the drive.
I have similar problems. On one system, my 7K320 will read 64mb/sec and on my other system with a hardware raid controller, it reads 145mb/sec.
Both drives are identical, yet their is a problem with many benchmarks reading certain systems.

Very good review John, you have a ton of benchmarks and comparisons.
+ rep, and good luck with the drive.

K-TRON

 

Yeah, I've checked everywhere I usually get stuff from, and none are in stock yet. Hoping soon though!

As a side note, the Samsung 500gb drives have come down to $149

 

The samsung drive has three platters, while the wd has two platters. This means that the WD drive has a higher data density (250gb versus 166gb per platter). The WD drive will have higher data bandwidth because of that additional data density, so it will perform much better than the Samsung Hm500LI

K-TRON

 

why we even bother to run benchys for hard drives, i never notice performance or power consumtion diference between brands.

 

yep, agree on all fronts, hence why I'm waiting for the WD... but, last time I checked the Samsung was still over $200. So, depending on what the WD costs, could still be a viable option for somebody simply looking for space as opposed to best speed.

WD should be a better drive though.

 

I agree that it is difficult to detect the real life difference in performance unless there is a very big change. However, I do notice the lower power since it is meaning a lower HDD temperature (about 3C lower than the Fujitsu MHZ2320BH) and a cooler palm rest. I won't be able to use this to warm up my hands in winter.

0.5W lower power consumption (my current best guess) is also significant if trying to get maximum battery time. It is 5% of 10W which translates to another 15 minutes in 5 hours.

John

 

Review looks great .. the numbers look almost like what I expected.

John, can you tell something about the noise level? Since I had to turn my brand new 320BEKT into a backup drive (a real pity!) because it created too much idle noise I'm not sure what this new mammoth will do How does it compare to the 320BEKT or the 250BEVT? For now I have to stick to my Hitachi 7k200 (100gb single platter) which is a LOT more silent than the 320BEKT even though on paper it's the other way round.

 

I can hear a hint of noise with the HDD in my Dell E6400 (where the HDD is fixed rigidly into the metal chassis, so no sound isolation). However, it is only a hint, with a bit of a low frequency "purr" and some very faint ticks. This noise is only audible in a quiet room and with the CPU fan stopped. If the fan comes on then the HDD is inaudible, but the fan itself is very quiet.

Overall, I think the measures to control power consumption also result in less noise.

John

 

Have you tried changing the Acoustic Management? That may help a lot.

 

How would you change the acoustic management?

Hitachi Ftools? Or is there another method out there? I tried using Ftools but it wouldn't let me touch the power management settings.

 

Must be something wrong with your HDD? I can't hear mine @ idle, at all. In fact, only time i hear my HDD is when it's seeking!
Though my drive did alot of noises the first week, but it aint doing it anymore.

I suggest that you send the HDD for RMA?

 

I just ordered a Western Digital Scorpio Black WD3200BEKT 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Notebook Hard from newegg and I'm now depressed after seeing some good things coming from the 500GB

 

The 320 is much more pricey anyways, so don't

 

Try HD Tune Pro. (trial version)

 

Funny, right now I'm using a WD3200BEVT and having previously tested a MHZ2320BH G1, the former seems to sip up much more power. I mean when on battery, the power consumption went as low as 12,7W (meaning over 4h of battery life) with MHZ2320BH but with WD3200BEVT, it won't go below the lower 13W`s (4h max). When downloading something, the battery life figuratevely halves. The only difference seems to be slightly better access times.

 

The Tom's Hardware tables show that the WD3200BEVT has a high power consumption. They appear to have fixed this with the WD5000BEVT which I are sure uses less power than the Fujitsu MHZ2320BH. In addition to my current measurements, the WD's operating temperature inside the computer is 2 or 3C cooler than the Fujitsu.

John

 

There are several tools out there like WinAAM, but some of them only work when running Windows default chipset drivers. But accoustic management only effects seeks noise where the disturbing noise I mean is the idle noise when the disk is just spinning. It's not really loud but a constant 'whoosh' like from a fan. Since my T61 is very silent and the CPU fan rarely goes up the hdd is the only noise.

 

That's interesting because I almost don't hear the seeks. They are barely noisier than the idle 'whoosh' that sounds more like another silent fan. I ordered 2 drives, one for a friend and one for me. Sound level was identical for both drives so either they were both broken or I'm just too picky. He doesn't complain as his cpu fan is louder than the hdd. But my T61 is very silent (in fact noiseless even in a quiet room unless you really put your ear on the hdd) and maybe I'm too much used to the silent single platter Hitachi.

The 100GB I have right now are simply not enough, but I don't want to trade speed and noiseless operation for more capacity. I was thinking about the Momentus 7200.3 because I read reports that especially when idle it's not as loud as the BEKT. But probably I will wait for the Momentus 7200.4 to arrive end of the year. That baby as a single platter 250gb would be ok if it's silent.

Choices, choices ...

I wonder how big the noise difference between single platter and dual/multi platter really is.

 

John, nice article ! well done.

too bad I bought a 2.5" Samsung 500GB already....

 

hey, just a heads up, NewEgg has these available now, $149.99

Just ordered one

 

I've got 2 on order too. Will stick my Samsung's in some eSATA enclosures. Hopefully I'll notice an improvement in general system speed and noise levels

 

If you have a hitachi single platter and the BEKT, you know how the difference is now, right?


And IMHO, if you can withstand the sound until the end of the year with the BEKT, you're not that picky with noise i'd say I'd throw it out directly if i am to change the HDD anyways.

 

I couldn't stand the noise so I demoted the BEKT to a USB backup drive. The 100GB of the Hitachi have to be enough for a few more months