On 2014-09-07 23:48, zil0g wrote:
> *atm* wdusil[a] knefle:
>
>> http://www.spidersweb.pl/2014/01/dysk-ssd-kompendium
.html
>
> I znow te mity o niskim poborze pradu. Wspominany tu Crucial MX 256
> ma pobor ~2x wiekszy od obecnych talerzowych, a od opisywanego WD DUALa
> 3x. Wogole ten tekst wyglada jakby byl posklejany z kilku innych:
>
> "Z kolei po sformatowaniu dysku zostanie on uznany za uszkodzony i wypadnie z
uzycia.
> Z kolei bedzie mozna korzystac z calej reszty pojemnosci dysku. Warto o tym
pamietac
> i wiedziec, ze po awarii tego typu nasze dane nadal beda bezpieczne
> i bedzie mozna je przeniesc w inne miejsce."
>

Poszukalem testow gdzie badano pobor pradu:

Crucial MX100 256GB: ok 3.40W (random write, sequential write)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8066/crucial-mx100-256
gb-512gb-review/8

WD Caviar Black 2TB: 10.70 Watts (Read/Write - ze specyfikacji)
http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_caviar_
black_review_2tb
Read and write power consumption were both consistent with the
manufacturer's claims of 10.7 watts. Idle power consumption actually
came up lower in our tests with an average of 6.41 watts measured over a
one minute period with no disk activity.
Startup current is one area larger drives tend to hit a foul ball on.
With high rotational speeds and a lot of weight to spin up to speed the
startup current tends to be quite high. The 2TB Caviar Black took a
tradeoff between fast ready times and startup current with a slower
startup time. This allowed the drive to limit the inrush power to just
under 17 watts. To put this in comparison the Constellation ES and the
RE4 used 27 watts and 24 watts respectively.