Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

WD Ships 750 GB 7200RPM HDD for Notebooks

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 13 comments

The 750 GB WD Scorpio Black for notebooks is now available for $149.00.

Wednesday Western Digital said that it is now shipping the new WD Scorpio Black HDDs for high-performance notebooks and portable storage devices.

Arriving in a 2.5-inch form factor, the new Scorpio Black drives combine 7200 RPM spin speed and 16 MB of cache to deliver maximum notebook performance. They also use the SATA 3 Gb/s interface and feature WD's Advanced Format (AF) technology that optimizes hard drives to take advantage of the capabilities of newer operating systems.

"Our most demanding customers have come to expect 'no compromises' from all of our Black series products," said Matt Rutledge, vice president of product marketing for WD. "The new WD Scorpio Black drive does not disappoint, providing users of portable devices the necessary speed, significant storage and efficient power management needed to enjoy their favorite HD content, high resolution images, powerful office applications or gaming at home, in the office or on the road."

Although WD focuses on the 750 GB model in its latest announcement, the Scorpio Black series comes in five flavors: 160 GB, 250 GB, 320 GB, 500 GB and the recent 750 GB. The 750 GB drive is now available in the U.S. at select resellers and distributors for $149 USD.

"The entire family of WD Scorpio Black hard drives is designed for use in OEM notebook systems and has been tested across multiple platforms to allow anyone a successful upgrade of speed and performance to their current notebook system," WD said in the release.

Display 13 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    cybr , January 5, 2011 3:01 PM
    Main issue that I've noticed is anything over 640gb is a taller drive than most notebooks can accommodate... Is that the case with this drive as well?
  • 5 Hide
    mikem_90 , January 5, 2011 3:06 PM
    cybrMain issue that I've noticed is anything over 640gb is a taller drive than most notebooks can accommodate... Is that the case with this drive as well?


    Quick search on WDC.com says no. its 9.5mm high.
  • 3 Hide
    Snipergod87 , January 5, 2011 3:10 PM
    cybrMain issue that I've noticed is anything over 640gb is a taller drive than most notebooks can accommodate... Is that the case with this drive as well?

    This is a 9.5mm Z-Height Drive at least according to this site: http://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=6278494663

    It is chinese but you can easily see the dimension numbers.

    Edit: mikem_90 found it on Western Digitals Site.
  • 1 Hide
    runswindows95 , January 5, 2011 3:53 PM
    The 750GB Blue is also 9.5mm. Just seems the 1TB versions are 12.5mm height.
  • 0 Hide
    Kahless01 , January 5, 2011 4:01 PM
    too much. the 500gb models go for 70$.
  • 0 Hide
    mikem_90 , January 5, 2011 4:15 PM
    I'm still pondering swapping my current drive in my laptop with either the Seagate 500GB XT, or this one. Its nice to see that high capacity doesn't have to be as slow. Hmm maybe after prices fall a bit.
  • 0 Hide
    rooket , January 5, 2011 7:36 PM
    Kahless01too much. the 500gb models go for 70$.


    It's mainly a matter of whether or not the laptop has two hard drive ports internally at that point imho although many come with eSATA these days. Still, that wouldn't be internal.
  • 0 Hide
    lamorpa , January 5, 2011 7:38 PM
    mikem_90I'm still pondering swapping my current drive in my laptop with either the Seagate 500GB XT, or this one.

    Get the Seagate if you want to lose your data in 6 to 9 months. If your needs are for longer storage, WD may be a good choice...
  • 1 Hide
    teflon2287 , January 5, 2011 9:56 PM
    "Get the Seagate if you want to lose your data in 6 to 9 months. If your needs are for longer storage, WD may be a good choice... "

    There is nothing wrong with Seagate in my experience... On average they seem to last about the same as WD....
  • 4 Hide
    mikem_90 , January 5, 2011 10:07 PM
    teflon2287"Get the Seagate if you want to lose your data in 6 to 9 months. If your needs are for longer storage, WD may be a good choice... "There is nothing wrong with Seagate in my experience... On average they seem to last about the same as WD....


    So much this talk is based on anecdotal evidence, a tiny sliver of how many drives are out in the field and operating. By the time we really know concretely what failure rates are across a run of the drives, its been discontinued for years. Its like MTBF, just a guess based on a small sample.

    I've heard the talk from all camps. Some people say WD's suck, some people say Seagates suck. Me, I'll just keep good backups instead.
  • 0 Hide
    lamorpa , January 6, 2011 11:48 AM
    I'm not some home user who had one failed drive. My company used early 7200.10 series half TB drives which had an over 60% failure rate in the field within a year (based on a pool of over 400 drives). Seagate never admitted the problem and never did anything other than do warrantee replacement of failed drives, though we found out they did have a preventive replacement policy for at least one large customer (based on a report from our supplier). Newer Seagate drives may be solid, but this has soured me on them for, at least, a while. They deserve it from me for their poor handling of the problem.
  • 0 Hide
    eddieroolz , January 7, 2011 3:06 AM
    I can find a use for 750GB and more performance. Waiting until it is $50.

    Oh and let me add my experience with Seagate. Horrible. New 500GB 7200.12 died in 2 months, its replacement died in 2 weeks. Third is the charm but I'm now freaked out and checking SMART every 4-12 hours.
  • 0 Hide
    geoffs , January 8, 2011 12:37 AM
    I've used all major brands of HD, enterprise, desktop, and laptop, except Samsung drives. All have failed. Some models from each manufacturer have had high failure rates (for at least one batch of drives), and all have had drives last for 5-10 years. In general, I've had excellent reliability from Seagate, WD, Hitachi/IBM, and Fujitsu laptop drives (I haven't used Toshiba laptop drives for long enough to make any useful statements about reliability).

    Performance however has been a very different story. With very few exceptions (many years ago), I've always had excellent performance from Seagate and WD drives, while performance from Hitachi and Fujitsu has varied from mediocre to very good, depending upon model. While I haven't used any of the recent Toshiba drives, performance on the older models was always mediocre to poor. The newer Toshiba drives are reported to be much faster, but I haven't tried them.

    For power usage/battery life, the Fujitsu and Hitachi drives have generally been excellent, while the Seagate and WD drives have varied more between models.

    Except for the reliability experience, all of the above is confirmed by the Tom's HW 2.5" HD charts.

    Given that performance and reliability are always important to me, I prefer the Seagate and WD drives. Still, I usually wait until I've read a thorough review of a new model before buying one, just to make sure the performance is as expected and that the power usage is as specified. And since I've had plenty of HD failures over the years, I always maintain recent backups.