wd2500BUDT vs WD2500BUCT

[borland]

Hey guys,
After a year of being on the website as a guest, I finally got a question that I was not able to find an answer.
We are using the HDD WD2500BUDT which is going end of life soon and were proposed to have it replaced with the WD2500BUCT. After checking the specs, it seems to me like a downgrade since it has less cache (16 vs 32).

Is it really a downgrade or the drives are comparable regarding productivity and reliability?

[Vulcan]

it seems to me like a downgrade since it has less cache (16 vs 32).

In my benchmarking & performance analysis experience, whether you will notice a performance difference between 16MB & 32MB cache, will depend on your system's configuration, and your system's workload(s). Some configurations & workloads will show the difference more than others (and some not at all) - benchmarks etc. cannot be relied upon to be relevant to your specific environment. To find the answer which is true in your specific case, I suggest you to try one of the different drives yourself on representative workloads, in your specific system(s) and see what you measure. (Note: I haven't checked what differences there are between those 2 models, I'm just using the info you provided.)

[borland]

Thank you,
I think another HDD will be available in a couple of weeks, will let you know, what is the difference.

[labtech]

"We are using the HDD WD2500BUDT which is going end of life soon..."

This is a pretty new drive. What is going on with it?

[borland]

WD does not make them anymore. A lot of vendors do not carry them since they cannot buy them. (Newegg as an example)