On 2014-09-08 12:30, atm wrote:
> 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.

Nowy WD Black tez nie wypada duzo lepiej:
Current Requirements
Power Dissipation
Read/Write 9.50 Watts
Idle 8.10 Watts
Standby 1.30 Watts
Sleep 1.30 Watts
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=760#
Tab3