[buddyglass]

If anybody has a white iMac w/ 500GB hard drive, could you post the exact manufacturer and model number?

For the 250GB version, it's a WD 2500JS, which has 8M cache. I'm curious whether the 500GB models shipped with the 5000JS (8M) or 5000KS (16M).

I'm considering replacing a drive in one of these iMacs, and I'd like to pick a drive whose power requirements are roughly in line with the drives Apple actually shipped w/ these models. The 5000JS and 5000KS have different power requirements, hence my question.

[mduell]

Have you actually read reports of drives failing to work in the iMac due to insufficient power? That would surprise me.

[Big Mac]

It shouldn't make a difference, buddyglass.

[buddyglass]

I haven't heard reports of drives failing, but then I haven't spent much time researching it either. I figured if I stayed within the power requirements then I'd be fairly guaranteed it would work. More power also means more heat, generally, which is another issue. I don't want to install a terrabyte drive only to have it burn up because the iMac was only designed to cool a less power-hungry model.

But it's good to know that, from most accounts, any 3.5" SATA drive should work.

Thoughts on the 32M cache WD, Samsung, Seagate and Hitachi drives? From what I can tell, WD is the way to go.

[mduell]

The power consumption (and thus heat production) really doesn't vary that much. Throw the terabyte in and don't worry about it.

The WD drives with their "green power" shenanigans are a joke. Go with Hitachi for IO performance or Seagate for sequential bandwidth.

[buddyglass]

Was basing it on the benchmarks at storagereview.com, which has looked at the WD, Samsung and Hitachi drives. The WD in question is in their "black" performance line. It handily beats the Samsung and Hitachi in pretty much every benchmark. Unfortunately, they haven't tested the 1TB 7200.11 from Seagate.