- 24x7 reliability
- Low-power, compact storage
- Supports high definition video
- 3-year limited warranty
- $89.99 –
- Save: $40.00 (31%)
- Free Shipping (restrictions apply)
Great 2.5" AV Drive 11/12/2013
Large Capacity, 2.5" Form Factor, Quiet, Low Power, Low Heat
Pricey compared to a 3.5" drive with the same or better performance
I have never been particularly loyal to a certain brand of disk drives. For a while I was buying nothing but IBM Deskstars until they started suffering from the famous “click of death” (Google it). I moved on to Seagate, Hitachi, Seagate, and eventually Western Digital. At this moment (subject to change) I have five 1TB WD-10xxx drives running in various PCs around the house. None of them have given me any trouble. One of them is in the PC that I use exclusively as an HTPC running Windows 8.1 with Windows Media Center.
My HTPC consists of an Intel DH67GD, i5-2400 processor, 16 GB of memory, and Nvidia GT640 video card. OTA tuning is handled by two SiliconDust HDHR3-US tuners over a gigabit network. Storage is handled by an Intel 120GB 330 Series SSD functioning as the system drive and a Western Digital WD10EURX for storing the video and audio files. Given that the Western Digital WD10EURX is also designed for video storage, I thought it would be interesting to see how the WD10JUCT compares in performance to its bigger brother, the WD10EURX.
First thing I did was run some quick benchmarks on the WD10EURX using Parkdale. With nothing running in the background it scored a sequential write speed of 113 Mbytes/sec and a sequential read speed of 115 Mbytes/sec. I then started an HD video in Windows Media Center while playing a HD video in MPC at the same time. The scores dropped to sequential write speed of 104 Mbytes/sec and a sequential read speed of 111 Mbytes/sec.
After copying around 500 GB of video files from the WD10EURX to the WD10JUCT, I removed the WD-10EURX and replaced it with the WD10JUCT. With nothing running in the background it scored a sequential write speed of 90 Mbytes/sec and a sequential read speed of 92 Mbytes/sec. I then started the same HD video in Windows Media Center while playing the same HD video in MPC at the same time. The scores dropped to sequential write speed of 83 Mbytes/sec and a sequential read speed of 89 Mbytes/sec.
I won’t bore you with specs, but while it is no big surprise that the WD10EURX outperforms the WD10JUCT, more importantly, the quality of the video playback was identical between the two drives. I used the WD10JUCT for several days and did not perceive any difference in performance or quality. I also noticed that the WD10JUCT is very quiet, and doesn’t throw off a lot of heat. I can’t speak to the reliability of the drive, but as I mentioned before Western Digital drives have been very reliable for me, and I expect this drive to be no different.
To summarize, the WD10JUCT seems to be an excellent choice if you are building an HTPC and need a 2.5” internal hard drive. Otherwise, if you have space for a 3.5” drive, save some money and buy something like a WD10EURX, or use spend the same amount of money and buy a larger capacity 3.5” drive like the 2TB WD20EURX.
3 people found this review helpful. Did you? Yes / No Thanks for the valuable feedback you provided!