MDD1963, yes a good point and beginning to wonder if I should swap drives.
The frown is up there because these are (kind of like the SATA-2 WD RE4 was to the Caviar Black) now improved, faster than ever & still just $10 more than today's WD Black (SATA-3) when on promo. The Disk tests shows the drive is faster than the RE4 or today's Caviar Black. I mean, with a 128MB cache & running at 7200 rpm, it should be. On the other hand, the WD Gold (any size) are prosumer drives, really designed for RAID and/or Datacenter usage. So unlike the RE4 once done for me (after running the wdidle3 utility), has became an expensive liability, preventing me from reaching UFO status once by a single point in the Desktop rating when new. At $129.99 each on promo, which still isn't a bad deal for a HDD with a 5 year warranty, makes me wonder 'what if' I'd saved a total of $20 on both & purchased the same size WD Blacks instead. The main difference is half the cache.
Well, with enough (or excess) cash invested in storage, and a couple of fast 1TB Seagate ST1000DM003 HDD's on hand, will have to swap & at least make the attempt to break the barrier. That's what was installed before the WD Gold was, there's been other system components upgraded (notably RAM) and now have the CPU tuned to near perfection (running at 4.4GHz by adjusting the clocks for all cores by 44). So my belief is that if I can find a drive onhand that will test in the top 85-90%, that should put me over the hump. After all, the drive test is one of those that falls under the Desktop rating.
While I'd prefer that UserBenchmark would allow me to stick a 2.5" SSD in there for the all three UFO ratings, that's not how their benchmark system works, points are knocked off if there's not a spinner.........what a bummer!
Am I in the year 2018 or are they 5 years backwards in time?
Sure seems the latter happens to their case. The site does have great in-depth reviews of some great & (in particular) the latest CPU's, all ranked from high to rock bottom. Great source of knowing where one stands or purchase consideration. The only thing I can't seem to figure out is that the 2TB WD Gold is ranked #1 out of 984 HDD's & even the Poor range is 85%. Yet I can barely break 10% most of the time.
What I believe I'll do is stick the drive in another SATA-3 PC & see if there's a difference, don't know what else to do. The WD extended test came back with no issues, Maybe there's some (invisible) software dragging down performance or it's W10. However, one's also docked by not having the latest OS installed, so it's dang if I do & dang if I don't.
Could older drivers be the answer? Under normal circumstances, I'd not think so, Intel MB's tends to fare well with the latest drivers. I simply cannot see this drive scoring so low on the test, and see in real action, there's two times when it hits the 4K speed test, that the test shows 'waiting, slow I/O load'. (or words to that effect) That's the only giveaway that something's not quite right.
What affects the I/O load, speed or whatever the term means? The system drive (512GB Samsung 950 PRO NVMe SSD) passes with flying colors (276%,around the top 2 percentile), plugged directly into the 2nd PCIe slot via adapter, wanted to keep it off the hot MB, plus that M.2 connection is Gen2, so half the speed if were there. There's otherwise only two drives, one optical & the drive being discussed in this Topic, so the SATA controllers being overloaded isn't an issue. The only other option I may have, would be to install a SATA-3 card to the final GPU lane, which is the single 2.0 one (the other two are PCIe 3.0). Only thing being, it's a low cost IOCrest card & would have to find the tall bracket, don't see how it could best the onboard Intel SATA controller (two ports of which are SATA-Express). Have tried all Intel ports, plus the two ASMedia ones to no avail.
Will keep shoveling!