Level 14
Content Creator
On my PC when I had use WD the performance was really good and boot time too.
Same here!

Looking at the test results, it really doesn't seem like there was that much of a difference, atleast to me:p

It seems like they ran the tests on the actual computer and not a VM like some other tests out there. These results seem more realistic, at least to me.


Level 41
Nice test. Thanks @stefanos. This subject is meaningless to me only because: 1. I don't go by strict numbers, and 2. my optimized machine takes upward of 1.5-2.0 minutes to boot fully ... no matter what AV is installed. :LOL::LOL::LOL: Not a big deal for me. The test is very good in pointing out WD's boot time effect on the system, which is negligible.

WD is slow for me only when opening Downloads folder with many .exe files. No big deal. My main wish is that my machine is otherwise efficient and problem-free. It's W10 that's slow for me, not WD. This is simply based on my user perception/experience.

Andy Ful

Level 51
Content Creator
That test should not be named 'WD performance test'. It shows only one side of WD performance. It does not show WD performance for management tasks, like: copying many files, making backups, opening the folder with many files, installing/updating applications, updating WD, updating the system, WD full scan, cleaning the system.
Furthermore, the test does not show the performance for the web browsing.
So, I have mixed feelings.:unsure:


Level 12
The test notebook has decent specifications--i7, dual channel RAM and SSD. Where are the huge numbers? 20 or so between benchmarks you can get with a repeat under the same conditions. 1 1/2 seconds difference in boot time, wow, OK so install some software that starts up w/Windows and voila, same-diff. A snapshot in time does not a blanket statement make.

What is the message the vid is trying to convey? Psst, this is rhetorical. Windows Security: take it or leave it. Plenty of fish in the sea, especially if you have older, low end hardware.