I seem to be a collector of external enclosures ... I have seven 3.5" and four 2.5" enclosures. I recently picked up a Rosewill 2.5" FW800/USB enclosure, so I though I would review/compare this new enclosure versus my older OWC 2.5" FW800/USB enclosure. I have three 500GB Western Digital Blue hard drives, one in my early 2008 17" MBP 2.5Ghz laptop, and one each in the enclosures to be tested. Before testing, the WD hard drives were tested using Western Digital's LifeGuard Diagnostics to scan for bad blocks and verify that the drives were properly functioning.
OWC:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/MOTG800U2/
This enclosure is made of plastic with the drive attaching to a PC board that slides onto an aluminum heat sink. The heat sink sticks out the bottom of the enclosure. The FW chip set is Oxford 912. I did not test the USB performance. The enclosure comes with FW800 9-pin to 9-pin cable, USB cable, and a protective "pouch". When I bought the enclosure, I purchased it as a bundle with a hard drive and also received some additional testing and back up software. I used the SpeedTools software that came with the bundle for the benchmarks in this review.
In my use of this enclosure, I have found that the head sink gets very hot. As suggested by others, I turn this enclosure upside down when I use it so that the heat sink is sticking up for maximum cooling. The plastic body remains relatively cool, even when the heat sink is not. It is a pity that none of the external enclosures provides access to the S.M.A.R.T. readings for their drives. It would be nice to track the internal drive temperature.
Rosewill
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182183
This enclosure is made entirely of metal. The drive mounts to a PC board that is mounted on a metal tray that slides into the case. The drive has to be angled to insert it into the SATA connection on the PC board. It works, but it is a bit unnerving the first time you do it. (It seems like it would damage the HD connector, but it does not.) The chipset for FW for this enclosure is the newer Oxford 934DSB. The enclosure comes with FW800 (9-pin to 9-pin) and USB cables. WARNING: for my enclosure, the FW800 cable was dead. When I plug it into the enclosure it will not turn on. Lucky for me, I had extra FW800 cables lying around.
This enclosure gets very, very hot when used intensively. For me, I can only touch it for 8-10 seconds before it gets very uncomfortable. While on the surface, this would seem to be bad, I think it is actually better than the OWC enclosure because there is more surface area to radiate the heat from the drive.
Performance:
I used the SpeedTools, QuckBench application to test the performance. Both enclosures and my Mac use the same WD 500GB Blue drive. While it is possible that the WD drives might have different performance characteristics, for the moment, I am assuming that they are small.
Internal MBP WD Drive:
Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write
4 KBytes 10.888 MB/Sec 16.810 MB/Sec 0.395 MB/Sec 2.874 MB/Sec
8 KBytes 22.968 MB/Sec 27.936 MB/Sec 0.800 MB/Sec 4.474 MB/Sec
16 KBytes 38.348 MB/Sec 46.670 MB/Sec 1.614 MB/Sec 8.262 MB/Sec
32 KBytes 54.595 MB/Sec 65.161 MB/Sec 3.250 MB/Sec 11.928 MB/Sec
64 KBytes 74.275 MB/Sec 73.924 MB/Sec 6.249 MB/Sec 17.341 MB/Sec
128 KBytes 81.143 MB/Sec 74.504 MB/Sec 12.220 MB/Sec 22.275 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 74.153 MB/Sec 74.121 MB/Sec 23.277 MB/Sec 31.801 MB/Sec
512 KBytes 86.317 MB/Sec 81.160 MB/Sec 28.769 MB/Sec 40.709 MB/Sec
1024 KBytes 82.123 MB/Sec 73.777 MB/Sec 42.889 MB/Sec 43.048 MB/Sec
Standard Ave 58.312 MB/Sec 59.340 MB/Sec 13.274 MB/Sec 20.301 MB/Sec
OWC Enclosure with WD Drive:
Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write
4 KBytes 13.111 MB/Sec 16.331 MB/Sec 0.532 MB/Sec 7.826 MB/Sec
8 KBytes 23.348 MB/Sec 25.842 MB/Sec 1.060 MB/Sec 7.491 MB/Sec
16 KBytes 36.364 MB/Sec 36.767 MB/Sec 2.146 MB/Sec 12.180 MB/Sec
32 KBytes 50.006 MB/Sec 44.535 MB/Sec 4.393 MB/Sec 16.903 MB/Sec
64 KBytes 62.896 MB/Sec 50.748 MB/Sec 8.525 MB/Sec 19.528 MB/Sec
128 KBytes 68.485 MB/Sec 55.058 MB/Sec 14.619 MB/Sec 24.094 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 69.887 MB/Sec 56.968 MB/Sec 23.318 MB/Sec 27.121 MB/Sec
512 KBytes 70.091 MB/Sec 57.742 MB/Sec 28.387 MB/Sec 42.621 MB/Sec
1024 KBytes 70.195 MB/Sec 57.344 MB/Sec 49.543 MB/Sec 40.042 MB/Sec
Standard Ave 51.598 MB/Sec 44.593 MB/Sec 14.725 MB/Sec 21.978 MB/Sec
Rosewill enclosure with WD Drive:
Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write
4 KBytes 11.734 MB/Sec 16.715 MB/Sec 0.594 MB/Sec 6.675 MB/Sec
8 KBytes 22.110 MB/Sec 23.877 MB/Sec 1.186 MB/Sec 7.088 MB/Sec
16 KBytes 35.049 MB/Sec 33.722 MB/Sec 2.342 MB/Sec 10.901 MB/Sec
32 KBytes 49.342 MB/Sec 41.472 MB/Sec 4.709 MB/Sec 15.532 MB/Sec
64 KBytes 61.516 MB/Sec 50.140 MB/Sec 9.236 MB/Sec 20.276 MB/Sec
128 KBytes 67.791 MB/Sec 54.731 MB/Sec 18.231 MB/Sec 23.321 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 65.605 MB/Sec 56.337 MB/Sec 23.835 MB/Sec 33.743 MB/Sec
512 KBytes 65.329 MB/Sec 57.918 MB/Sec 31.722 MB/Sec 40.952 MB/Sec
1024 KBytes 65.659 MB/Sec 58.172 MB/Sec 54.987 MB/Sec 38.659 MB/Sec
Standard Ave 49.348 MB/Sec 43.676 MB/Sec 16.316 MB/Sec 21.905 MB/Sec
As you can see, the internal drive performs best in most tests, followed by the OWC enclosure with the Rosewill coming in a close third.
Conclusion:
The OWC has slightly better performance, but questionable heat dissipation capabilities and costs more. It is using an older Oxford chipset, but that does not seem to matter much. The cables were of higher quality than the Rosewill. For casual/occasional use, the heat dissipation issues should not be a problem
The Rosewill is reasonable close in performance. I was hoping that the newer chipset would improve performance, but that was not the case. The case definitely radiates more heat than the OWC. If you plan on pounding the drive in the external enclosure, then I think this would be a better choice. This enclosure is slightly cheaper (currently ~$8) than the OWC, but if the OWC is bought in a bundle with the drive, the price difference might be moot.
One last note, I don't think the Rosewill case will fit any of the new 12mm 750GB or 1T 2.5" Western Digital drives. The OWC seems to be taller and might be able to handle these drives based on size. However, it is unknown if either chipset being used can handle the larger capacity.
OWC:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/MOTG800U2/
This enclosure is made of plastic with the drive attaching to a PC board that slides onto an aluminum heat sink. The heat sink sticks out the bottom of the enclosure. The FW chip set is Oxford 912. I did not test the USB performance. The enclosure comes with FW800 9-pin to 9-pin cable, USB cable, and a protective "pouch". When I bought the enclosure, I purchased it as a bundle with a hard drive and also received some additional testing and back up software. I used the SpeedTools software that came with the bundle for the benchmarks in this review.
In my use of this enclosure, I have found that the head sink gets very hot. As suggested by others, I turn this enclosure upside down when I use it so that the heat sink is sticking up for maximum cooling. The plastic body remains relatively cool, even when the heat sink is not. It is a pity that none of the external enclosures provides access to the S.M.A.R.T. readings for their drives. It would be nice to track the internal drive temperature.
Rosewill
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182183
This enclosure is made entirely of metal. The drive mounts to a PC board that is mounted on a metal tray that slides into the case. The drive has to be angled to insert it into the SATA connection on the PC board. It works, but it is a bit unnerving the first time you do it. (It seems like it would damage the HD connector, but it does not.) The chipset for FW for this enclosure is the newer Oxford 934DSB. The enclosure comes with FW800 (9-pin to 9-pin) and USB cables. WARNING: for my enclosure, the FW800 cable was dead. When I plug it into the enclosure it will not turn on. Lucky for me, I had extra FW800 cables lying around.
This enclosure gets very, very hot when used intensively. For me, I can only touch it for 8-10 seconds before it gets very uncomfortable. While on the surface, this would seem to be bad, I think it is actually better than the OWC enclosure because there is more surface area to radiate the heat from the drive.
Performance:
I used the SpeedTools, QuckBench application to test the performance. Both enclosures and my Mac use the same WD 500GB Blue drive. While it is possible that the WD drives might have different performance characteristics, for the moment, I am assuming that they are small.
Internal MBP WD Drive:
Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write
4 KBytes 10.888 MB/Sec 16.810 MB/Sec 0.395 MB/Sec 2.874 MB/Sec
8 KBytes 22.968 MB/Sec 27.936 MB/Sec 0.800 MB/Sec 4.474 MB/Sec
16 KBytes 38.348 MB/Sec 46.670 MB/Sec 1.614 MB/Sec 8.262 MB/Sec
32 KBytes 54.595 MB/Sec 65.161 MB/Sec 3.250 MB/Sec 11.928 MB/Sec
64 KBytes 74.275 MB/Sec 73.924 MB/Sec 6.249 MB/Sec 17.341 MB/Sec
128 KBytes 81.143 MB/Sec 74.504 MB/Sec 12.220 MB/Sec 22.275 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 74.153 MB/Sec 74.121 MB/Sec 23.277 MB/Sec 31.801 MB/Sec
512 KBytes 86.317 MB/Sec 81.160 MB/Sec 28.769 MB/Sec 40.709 MB/Sec
1024 KBytes 82.123 MB/Sec 73.777 MB/Sec 42.889 MB/Sec 43.048 MB/Sec
Standard Ave 58.312 MB/Sec 59.340 MB/Sec 13.274 MB/Sec 20.301 MB/Sec
OWC Enclosure with WD Drive:
Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write
4 KBytes 13.111 MB/Sec 16.331 MB/Sec 0.532 MB/Sec 7.826 MB/Sec
8 KBytes 23.348 MB/Sec 25.842 MB/Sec 1.060 MB/Sec 7.491 MB/Sec
16 KBytes 36.364 MB/Sec 36.767 MB/Sec 2.146 MB/Sec 12.180 MB/Sec
32 KBytes 50.006 MB/Sec 44.535 MB/Sec 4.393 MB/Sec 16.903 MB/Sec
64 KBytes 62.896 MB/Sec 50.748 MB/Sec 8.525 MB/Sec 19.528 MB/Sec
128 KBytes 68.485 MB/Sec 55.058 MB/Sec 14.619 MB/Sec 24.094 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 69.887 MB/Sec 56.968 MB/Sec 23.318 MB/Sec 27.121 MB/Sec
512 KBytes 70.091 MB/Sec 57.742 MB/Sec 28.387 MB/Sec 42.621 MB/Sec
1024 KBytes 70.195 MB/Sec 57.344 MB/Sec 49.543 MB/Sec 40.042 MB/Sec
Standard Ave 51.598 MB/Sec 44.593 MB/Sec 14.725 MB/Sec 21.978 MB/Sec
Rosewill enclosure with WD Drive:
Transfer Size Sequential Read Sequential Write Random Read Random Write
4 KBytes 11.734 MB/Sec 16.715 MB/Sec 0.594 MB/Sec 6.675 MB/Sec
8 KBytes 22.110 MB/Sec 23.877 MB/Sec 1.186 MB/Sec 7.088 MB/Sec
16 KBytes 35.049 MB/Sec 33.722 MB/Sec 2.342 MB/Sec 10.901 MB/Sec
32 KBytes 49.342 MB/Sec 41.472 MB/Sec 4.709 MB/Sec 15.532 MB/Sec
64 KBytes 61.516 MB/Sec 50.140 MB/Sec 9.236 MB/Sec 20.276 MB/Sec
128 KBytes 67.791 MB/Sec 54.731 MB/Sec 18.231 MB/Sec 23.321 MB/Sec
256 KBytes 65.605 MB/Sec 56.337 MB/Sec 23.835 MB/Sec 33.743 MB/Sec
512 KBytes 65.329 MB/Sec 57.918 MB/Sec 31.722 MB/Sec 40.952 MB/Sec
1024 KBytes 65.659 MB/Sec 58.172 MB/Sec 54.987 MB/Sec 38.659 MB/Sec
Standard Ave 49.348 MB/Sec 43.676 MB/Sec 16.316 MB/Sec 21.905 MB/Sec
As you can see, the internal drive performs best in most tests, followed by the OWC enclosure with the Rosewill coming in a close third.
Conclusion:
The OWC has slightly better performance, but questionable heat dissipation capabilities and costs more. It is using an older Oxford chipset, but that does not seem to matter much. The cables were of higher quality than the Rosewill. For casual/occasional use, the heat dissipation issues should not be a problem
The Rosewill is reasonable close in performance. I was hoping that the newer chipset would improve performance, but that was not the case. The case definitely radiates more heat than the OWC. If you plan on pounding the drive in the external enclosure, then I think this would be a better choice. This enclosure is slightly cheaper (currently ~$8) than the OWC, but if the OWC is bought in a bundle with the drive, the price difference might be moot.
One last note, I don't think the Rosewill case will fit any of the new 12mm 750GB or 1T 2.5" Western Digital drives. The OWC seems to be taller and might be able to handle these drives based on size. However, it is unknown if either chipset being used can handle the larger capacity.