Does Size make a difference? for speed? WD v Seagate?

[kyosuke]

Ok, so I need to know.. because no one has really exlained this.

I was looking at getting the WD Caiar 250 HD for my new system
then someone said to go with the Seagate 250GB instead..

THEN someone said to go with the 320gb instead b/c it would be faster..

Can you please explain this to me? or tell me if it's false?

Of those 3, which is the best?

Thanks!!

 

[Guest]

I'd go for the benchmarks. Ich think they speak for themselves. Like for excample:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/27/15-years-of-hard-drive-history/page10.html#readwrite_transfer_rates

 

[kyosuke]

I'd go for the benchmarks. Ich think they speak for themselves. Like for excample:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/27/15-years-of-hard-drive-history/page10.html#readwrite_transfer_rates

hmmm, still doesn't tell me much between those 3 HDs though. Or atleast I can't interpret it form those...

 

[Guest]

I wanted to give you the hint to start looking for benchmark tests... I just was too lazy to find a test summary with your 3 disks in it

 

[kyosuke]

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2803&p=1

Found it.

Looks like for general App use, the Seagate is a little bit better

BUT for gaming se the Western Digital excels performance wise.

Looks like I need ot change back to my first choice and go with WD 250 or 320 even..

Though, seagate or WD.. as a general user for gaming, I doubt I'd notice much of a difference if any *shrug*

 

[rickkipp]

AnandTech just had a test on the newest version of the WD drives. They look pretty good, too!

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2922