Performance with new WD Blue.

[lexluthermiester]

applications which you actually use and representing what you normally do.

As mentioned in the OP, that's actually how I discovered the performance difference. As a good practice to qualify drives I put into systems, I always do a triple set of full surface scans. The utility I use reports the speed of the process real-time and logs it to a graph which is displayed at the end of each run. The CrystalDiskMark screen shot was to actually show the performance as taking a screenshot from within the bootable utility I use is not worth the trouble. CrystalDiskMark got it within an statistical margin of error of the scanning utility, so I'm willing to trust it.

Well either way single plater vs dual platter is why performance has changed. Interesting to see WD changed the shell. But its just a shell.

Should have been more clear, the drive on the right is a WD, but not the older Blue I was talking about in the OP. Was using the one on the right to demonstrate as an example.

 

[AsherJames55]

I used to be a huge WD fan until I had one die on me and I was unable to recover the data. I've since switched to seagate. My other gripe with WD is they external drives seem to take forever to wake up from sleep mode and allow files to start reading and writing. Other brands seem to be a lot faster to wake up.