Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Seagate vs WD

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 8, 2007 3:51:07 PM

:?: Any opinions as to which is a better drive(primarily gaming)the Seagate ST3250620AS or the WD HD-WD2500KS (both 250GB)can't justify getting a Raptor due to costs for a couple of extra load time seconds.

More about : seagate

February 8, 2007 5:00:27 PM

Both are quality manufacturers.

I prefer Seagate. If you go WD - look for the Caviar SE (mainstream) of SE 16 (performance) drives. Seagate used to have the better warranty but I don't know now - you should compare the warranties.
February 9, 2007 8:19:36 PM

Seagates still have a 5 year warranty but some of the WD line also has a 5 year warranty. The one you picked does not (SE). However, if you look at the RE Line, they will have 5 year warranties available for them.

The 24x7 reliability rating for all companies are generally considered marketing but there isn't a huge price difference between the two versions. There could be a slight decrease or increase in performance with the entry level "server" storage solutions due to whatever settings the manufacturer sets. I'm not sure if this information is open to the public though or if there is any substantial difference. Seagate has the ES line that compares to the WD's RE line. Maxtor has Maxline but I'm not sure how Seagate has integrated with Maxtor after buying them out.
Related resources
February 9, 2007 11:35:21 PM

Both are excellent drives. I have had wonderful luck with both manufacturers. I think the performance difference will be imperceptible. If all things are the same, choose the lower priced one.
February 10, 2007 12:27:59 AM

If you're going for the 250gb route, definately choose the WD drive. That drive runs the coolest of the 250GB drives out there and has the best performance record.

For a few dollars more though in the 320GB range you definately would want the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB. It's the best performing Mid-range drive there is.

but in the 250 range. The WD > the competition.
February 10, 2007 12:38:15 AM

Quote:
If you're going for the 250gb route, definately choose the WD drive. That drive runs the coolest of the 250GB drives out there and has the best performance record.

For a few dollars more though in the 320GB range you definately would want the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB. It's the best performing Mid-range drive there is.

but in the 250 range. The WD > the competition.


I wasn't aware of the thermal data, but that's good advice. The 320 gig is definitely a rock solid performer. You can find it for $90-95 OEM. I've been very pleased with my 2
February 10, 2007 12:57:13 AM

Check out their warranties. Where i´m at Seagate has 5 years wheras WD only has 2. Speed and noise don´t concern me so the choice i would make is clear. I´ve to add though, that i´m biased since i had 3 WDs die on me within a few days while the Seagate i bought survived in the same computer for six years...
February 10, 2007 1:05:27 AM

Quote:
Check out their warranties. Where i´m at Seagate has 5 years wheras WD only has 2. Speed and noise don´t concern me so the choice i would make is clear. I´ve to add though, that i´m biased since i had 3 WDs die on me within a few days while the Seagate i bought survived in the same computer for six years...


WDs have a 3 year warranty OEM. 1 year Retail.
There's a few WD drives that have a 5 year as well. Can't remember which though.
February 10, 2007 1:06:37 AM

Who cares about warranty. How many people actually return faulty HDs when the data on them is worth 100 times the cost of the drive - at the same time exposing private documents for a few dollars and/or a lot of trouble and waiting. If a drive fails you throw it out, simple as that.

And, WD > Seagate. I've never had a WD fail, but two seagates (different computers, different sizes) on the other hand HAVE failed. WD have way superior quality imo.
February 10, 2007 1:16:19 AM

You are missing the point. If someone tells you his product lasts ten years and another manufacturer tells you his product lasts five years which product do you think will fail earlier?

Additionaly, if someone looses something 100 times the cost of a 80$ HDD because of a defective HDD then he deserves it. Not backing up critical data that go into that price region is something beyond stupid.
February 10, 2007 1:17:42 AM

Quote:

WDs have a 3 year warranty OEM. 1 year Retail.
There's a few WD drives that have a 5 year as well. Can't remember which though.


That would be their Caviar series, i believe. A friend of mine uses them for his servers. He´s quite satisfied with them.
February 10, 2007 2:23:24 AM

Don't think I missed the point. Does it really matter if the warranty is 1, 2, or 5 years? Does that prove a product will last longer? Show me a link that proves statistically that drives with longer warranty outlast ones with shorter (by statistically I mean - enough data collected to prove the hypothesis, not just random cases) and I'll consider changing my view on the matter.

As for the 100 times the value - I'm talking figuratively .. not cash value of data. And exaggerating to make a point. I'm sure you did get the general point..... it was about sensitivity regarding entrusting someone with your documents - not loss of money.
February 10, 2007 2:41:24 AM

It is a toss. Both are good HDD maufactures. On sound, heat, speed, and MTF they are similar. I tend to find better prices on the WD products, but once in a while Seagate will be the better deal.

For a 250GB drive I wouldn't spend more then $50-65. Look for rebates and you will find a drive in this range.
February 10, 2007 10:14:57 PM

Rofl, i'm sorry i stopped reading your response on the first line! If a manufacturer is willing to give their product a 5 year warranty then you can bet it will last 5 years and then some the point being the drive with the longest warranty is probably the better drive as the manu has more faith in his product!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it! 8)
February 10, 2007 10:37:32 PM

I return drives to Seagate under warranty, no problems. And I always get my data back, if its recoverable, whether I need it or not. Their data recovery lab is quite good, and well trusted.

Now, if I had 100 GB of pron, I might re-think that thought...
February 10, 2007 10:45:45 PM

I have been buying hard drives for 15 years or more and most of them have been Seagate I have had other brands but the only thing that I ever remember about them was that I lost data to save a few bucks. I have retired all of my seagates till I needed larger hard drives not because of failure. I still think the best warranty is experience with them and all mine have been good.
February 10, 2007 11:18:55 PM

I've had a ton of Seagates, and they work amazing. Never had a problem, and the 5year warrenty is icing on the cake
February 10, 2007 11:28:17 PM

Quote:
:?: Any opinions as to which is a better drive(primarily gaming)the Seagate ST3250620AS or the WD HD-WD2500KS (both 250GB)can't justify getting a Raptor due to costs for a couple of extra load time seconds.

You should make sure you have 2GB of RAM before you consider a high-RPM drive to speed load times. Games load much faster if you have 2GB or more of RAM, at least in windows XP.
February 11, 2007 12:18:37 AM

Quote:
Rofl, i'm sorry i stopped reading your response on the first line! If a manufacturer is willing to give their product a 5 year warranty then you can bet it will last 5 years and then some the point being the drive with the longest warranty is probably the better drive as the manu has more faith in his product!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it! 8)


By your logic, a drive with a one year warranty will last for 1 year and then some. Personally I've had exactly one drive go bad in the 20 years I've had a computer with an HD. That was about 2 years ago and the maxtor drive had a 1 year warranty and it lasted 6 months (the refurb I got has been in use every sense).

Personally, I bought a WD5000ks over the Seagate, because it's a quieter drive, but if noise isn't an issue and they cost the same amount of money, then buy a Seagate. Bottom line is if a drive dies in 3 years, a new replacement will be dirt cheap for that size drive.
February 11, 2007 12:32:41 AM

Quote:
I have been buying hard drives for 15 years or more and most of them have been Seagate I have had other brands but the only thing that I ever remember about them was that I lost data to save a few bucks. I have retired all of my seagates till I needed larger hard drives not because of failure. I still think the best warranty is experience with them and all mine have been good.


I can say the same thing about all but one maxtor, Micropolis, Quantum and WD. Hard drives rarely die. It happens, some people have lousy luck and sometimes a company releases a lemon, but most go on forever....and FWIW, I can remember people saying what crap Seagate was at some point in the last 10 years. I'd go for OEM if the OP is buying WD. If he want's the 5 year warranty or is going to raid the drives, then get the YS line. Otherwise, the KS lineup is fine.

If getting seagate, make sure it's 7200.10.
February 11, 2007 12:46:30 AM

Most drives should last you long past the warranty. Drives didn't use to be as good as they are now, but for several years now your better dives have a MTBF of many, many years. I just looked up Seagate. They list there drives with a AFR of .34% that works out to a MTBF of around 294 years of use. I would hope you plan to replace your drives every once in a while.

Edit: I just checked WD's MTBF are at 1 mil hours or about 114 years. Not as good as the seagate but still long past what you should need.

Both are figured off a 100% duty cycle. (24x7)
February 11, 2007 1:23:32 AM

"It is a toss. Both are good HDD maufactures. On sound, heat, speed, and MTF they are similar."

Uhm, actually the WD is cooler and quieter. Only reason to really go for the Seagate .10 over the WD is if 1) you needed the 750GB or 2) the warranty made you feel better or 3) you could get a better price.

Personally I've had 3 Seagates die on me in the last year (.7, .8 and .9 models). But luck (or lack of) is just that, and I'm not gonna say Seagate is necessarily worse due to that. Noise and heat however, the WD wins.
February 11, 2007 1:49:48 AM

Both are excellent manufacturers, WD's tend to run a little cooler and a little quieter but not by much, but seagates perpendicular drives are faster. In my experience WD's are more reliable but either way you'll have a good drive.
February 11, 2007 2:55:34 AM

Both the drives he mentioned are perpendicular, it sounded like you may have been implying that the WD isn't, but I'm not sure. However, you made me go check out the seagate website, where I realised something possibly significant. The exact model he states for the Seagate only has a 8mb cache. Don't know if these links will work but:
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name...
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name...

Whilst the WD KS models are the high-performance range of desktop drives and have a 16MB cache. Something to be aware of!
February 11, 2007 3:19:51 AM

I own drives from both companies and both have proven good over the years. No drives from either have failed. I'd look mainly at the size of the cache and the price. Since the cache size is the same on these (16mb), then that leaves the price. In the end, I think you'd be happy with either drive, based on my experience.
February 11, 2007 3:23:29 AM

Heh, right after I said that the model he gave is only 8mb cache...
February 11, 2007 3:29:55 AM

If you get WD, get Raid Edition drive even if you won't build RAID array. They are faster and last longer.
February 11, 2007 3:46:08 AM

1) I'm sure you read my entire post. But if it makes you feel better then... be a prat :) 

2) Your system specs in your profile shows you know nothing about computers in general, and harddrives in particular. You have one single 320 gig drive and think you know drives? I have 11 drives hooked to this tower alone and five other computers in this room.

3) The notion that warranty or insurance guarantees absolutely anything is pure nonsense - the manufacturers know very well that only a certain percentage return broken hardware. Factor into the equation that as time passes the product decreases in value and you will be less and less likely to USE that warranty.

4) Seagates have been bad for me. In my mind they are for computers with 1-2 drives max, and not for serious use - in my experience they fail more easily when a) they take a physical "bump" = lesser quality mechanics, b) they lose power unexpectedly, c) operating systems go flaky and cause them to become corrupt. For these reasons and many more I prefer WD.

Just use common sense. Prepare for the fact that any drive can fail at any time, for various reasons. Opt to backup crucial/personal data and don't care too much about the cost of the drive unless you're a cheap s.o.b. - if your data is safe then who cares if a drive fails after X years and there's warranty left. What's the drive worth by then ya think? What size drive could you get five years ago - 60 gigs? 80? ... so you save 30 bucks. Whopee.

Only time I'd return a drive is if it was broken on delivery.
February 11, 2007 3:53:48 AM

Quote:
Heh, right after I said that the model he gave is only 8mb cache...


I think I was typing while you were submitting. Unless I'm reading something wrong though, and that could be, he originally asked about the Seagate ST3250620AS and that seems to read a 16 mg cache, though the ST3250820AS has only a 8 mb cache. But I know I've made mistakes before and this wouldn't be the first time.
February 11, 2007 4:01:51 AM

Crappo, you're right! My bad. Musta got them the wrong way around whilst pasting and tripped over my own feet so to speak. :) 
February 11, 2007 4:13:19 AM

Tell you what, why don't we both have a beer and remind ourselves that mistakes happen and we've both made them at one time or other. Then be glad that someone was able to politely point it out and not shoot any flames our way.
February 11, 2007 4:19:07 AM

Indeed :) 

So conclusion, Seagate's a bit faster, WD is a bit cooler and quieter. One has a 5 year warranty, the other has 3. Comes down to picking what's more important to you.

PS Whatever you do, don't get a Seagate OEM drive, a lot of them are made in China and die as quickly as Maxtors (I'd go as far as to guess they might be made at the same factories!)
February 11, 2007 4:34:18 AM

Quote:
:?: Any opinions as to which is a better drive(primarily gaming)the Seagate ST3250620AS or the WD HD-WD2500KS (both 250GB)can't justify getting a Raptor due to costs for a couple of extra load time seconds.

You should make sure you have 2GB of RAM before you consider a high-RPM drive to speed load times. Games load much faster if you have 2GB or more of RAM, at least in windows XP.

Not necessarily true. I only had 1GB of ram for years with a RAID 0 array of 2x 36GB Raptors and I was always the first one to be in the server after a map change in various games.. and that included a lot of players with 2GB of ram. The hard drive is the bottleneck of performance in the computer.. not the ram for nearly all applications that have to access the drive(s). An application only uses a specific amount of ram - having 2GB isn't going to do much for a game that only uses 500MB. Even a game like BF2.. ram intensive, but I bet those with 1GB and a RAID0 array are still loading maps faster than those with 2GB and a single 7200rpm drive.
February 11, 2007 4:44:54 AM

I sell and build PC's and have been using Seagate Hard drives in our systems for over 3 years, in that time only about 5 drives have failed. 2 of the same size and spec. We traced that back to the hard drives overheating as they had been place 2 close together in RAID and no space around them. Bad Mistake on our part :oops:  :oops:  . Thats possible about 300 plus drives (also sell them as parts) take out the 2 that were our fault and your left with a 1% failure rate. Not to bad. 8)
February 11, 2007 4:52:08 AM

Quote:
Both the drives he mentioned are perpendicular, it sounded like you may have been implying that the WD isn't, but I'm not sure. However, you made me go check out the seagate website, where I realised something possibly significant. The exact model he states for the Seagate only has a 8mb cache. Don't know if these links will work but:
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name...
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name...

Whilst the WD KS models are the high-performance range of desktop drives and have a 16MB cache. Something to be aware of!


FYI, the WDs are not perpendicular drives. WD may have recently released an perpendicular drive (I haven't been reading Storage Review lately), but not the 500GB models that came out 8 or 9 months ago.
February 11, 2007 6:17:02 AM

Quote:

And, WD > Seagate. I've never had a WD fail, but two seagates (different computers, different sizes) on the other hand HAVE failed. WD have way superior quality imo.


you got that right man , i`m using WD drives since the 320MB 14 years ago and not one of them had any problems.Used a Quantum Fireball (that was a real pain in the a**) and a Fujitsu and both failed.
!