HDD Performance Battle...Which one is better?

theguyisback23

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2009
127
0
18,710
Im planing on instaling a fresh windows 10 install to my desktop...
I already have 2 HDD that are totally different

One is (Western Digital WD Green WD10EZRX 1TB IntelliPower 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive Bare Drive - OEM) with a cache of 64mb and sata 3.0 capable

And the other is a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250820AS 250GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive

My motherboard(GA-EP43T-UD3L) is capable of supporting supporting up to 6 SATA 3Gb/s .
devices.

The question is all about speed... which one is faster at read/write and has the lowest latency...
Also... if my mobo has only up to sata2 (3gb/s) and the Hdd is sata3 ...can the difference be that bad on an HDD?? i mean like ..SSD can achieve great speeds ,,but does this also happen to hDD's? They use less performance/speed if they lack a sata3 connection and have sata2 instead??

Also im trying to make a judgement if the desktop will be faster with 2 HDD's the main with the windows system and the other all the files or if the 1 HDD is faster in general than 2 HDD's

So could anyone solve my problem?? I would like a short explanation not answers saying seagate is always better or western digital is better because i have one...or buy an SSD !
 
Solution
You should get the best performance by using the Barracuda as your main and the WD Green as a data drive. The 7200 rpm of the Seagate is standard for a hard drive; the 5400-5900 rpm of a green drive is noticeably slower. Sucks to only have 250 GB for a main drive, though.

Don't even worry about SATA 2 vs. SATA 3. Neither of those drives will come close to maxing out even a SATA 2 port. Regardless of the data transfer rate they're theoretically capable of, a HDD's read-write rate won't come close to that. The place where you see a benefit from SATA 3 is generally with SSDs only.

Ameen Ahmed

Reputable
Oct 1, 2015
79
0
4,660
Seagate is the widely used internal hard drive and it is best to go with seagate
sata 2 and sata 3 connection differences
1. Device and mobo support SATA 2 - use of a SATA 3 cable will not get you the 6GB/s due to physical limitations of device and mobo.
2.Device and mobo support SATA 3 - use of a SATA 2 cable will not get you the 6GB/s due to physical limitation of the cable.
3. Device supports SATA 3, but mobo supports SATA 2 - using either SATA 2 or 3 cable will result in 3GB/s.
4. Device supports SATA 2, but mobo supports SATA 3 - using either cable will result in 3GB/s.
5. Device and mobo support SATA 3 - use of SATA 2 cable will result in 3GB/s
6. Device and mobo support SATA 3 - using a SATA 3 cable will get you the 6GB/s
 
You should get the best performance by using the Barracuda as your main and the WD Green as a data drive. The 7200 rpm of the Seagate is standard for a hard drive; the 5400-5900 rpm of a green drive is noticeably slower. Sucks to only have 250 GB for a main drive, though.

Don't even worry about SATA 2 vs. SATA 3. Neither of those drives will come close to maxing out even a SATA 2 port. Regardless of the data transfer rate they're theoretically capable of, a HDD's read-write rate won't come close to that. The place where you see a benefit from SATA 3 is generally with SSDs only.
 
Solution

theguyisback23

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2009
127
0
18,710
I used a benchmark software that informed me my current HDD speeds and latency compared to the exact models... THe winner is WD 1TB at all the speeds and has the lowest latency evebthough it is a 5400rpm Hdd...average latency 4,2 while barracuda 7200 has 4.16... and Wd has 64mb cache not 8... and in general it wins at random reads and writes in all the sections apart from 4k.. which is useless for me because i cant even play at full HD :D