Western Digital Vs. Seagate Barracuda Whats Your Opinion?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

Western Digital Vs. Seagate Barracuda

  • Western Digital

    Votes: 31 31.0%

  • Seagate Barracuda

    Votes: 69 69.0%
  • Total voters
    100
H

htoonthura

Distinguished
May 21, 2006
651
0
18,980



Two of my WD HDs crashed in less than a year. I never have problem with seagate.
 
rgsaunders

rgsaunders

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2007
401
0
18,780
Seagate 5 year warranty
Western Digital 3 year warranty

Given equal performance its an easy decision, and I have had 3 times the failure rate with WD compared to Seagate.
 
T

T8RR8R

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
748
0
18,980
For overall performance check out the Samsung F1 series of HDD's. For Uber reliability look into the Seagates more. I've never had issues with either of them.
 
G

Gravemind123

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
649
0
18,980
Using a WD Caviar SE and a Seagate 7200.10 and have no issues with either, but I've heard great things about the Barracuda 7200.11s so I voted Seagate.
 
TSIMonster

TSIMonster

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2006
1,129
0
19,280
Well, I have had three seagates die on me recently and on WD.

One seagate was new, the other two were 1-2 years old.

The WD drive was 8 years old :)

So no company is immune to crashes. I have had crashes from EVERY brand. I generally buy Seagate or Samsung assuming price is the same and speeds are competitive.
 
Grebuloner

Grebuloner

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2007
22
0
18,510
Every WD drive I've owned since 1998 is still actively running (that's 10+ drives). Before then, all but one were still operational when they were taken out of use. The only failure was when a power supply blew up and took most of the hardware with it...but the recovery service was still able to get most of the data off the drive.

All of my Seagates have either click-of-deathed or are currently on shaky ground (random spin downs, even during access).

Everyone will have their own set of luck with one brand or another.
 
T

T8RR8R

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
748
0
18,980
The .11 drives are newer and slightly faster based on sythetic scores so I couldn't really say that they would be that different. However based on the prices I would think that the .11 would be the way to go, I mean it couldn't hurt.
 
TSIMonster

TSIMonster

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2006
1,129
0
19,280
I have 2 7200.10 (320s) in RAID 0 and 1 7200.11 (750) and the speeds are about equal. So, given the choice, the 7200.11 would be the better choice.
 
P

PSYCHoHoLiC

Distinguished
Oct 10, 2006
246
0
18,680
I am using my first WD drive in a LONG time.. i've used seagates for the past 6 years or so.. both are good, however i feel that WD Has the upper hand in performance at the moment.. check out my throughput in hdtach, not bad for a single drive.

post-54-63263-54656.jpg




 
KyleSTL

KyleSTL

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2007
1,678
0
19,790

What? The Samsung F1 hard drives have had major failure issues and only rarely out perform the WD AAKS drives (6400 and 7500, and to a lesser extent the 3200). WD FTW!
 
JackNaylorPE

JackNaylorPE

Titan
BANNED
Oct 30, 2004
32,255
14
99,960
I just posted in another thread the failure rates of recent WD drives based upon storagereview.com's reliability survey. In short, one WD Raptor had like a 15% chance of failing within 2 years (25 / 168 failed). And that was their most reliable drive since 2006. The 2003 Raptor did much better at 9% failures within 2 years.....but all WD drives have not fared well in the reliability surveys since 2004. The last 2 Caviars finished in the 4th and 5th percentiles, meaning they were less reliable than 94-95% of the drives in the survey.

http://www.storagereview.com/WD1500ADFD.sr?page=0%2C9
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, the Western Digital Raptor WD1500 is more reliable than 12% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation."

http://www.storagereview.com/WD7500AAKS.sr?page=0%2C6
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, a predecessor of the Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS, the Western Digital RE2 WD5000YS , is more reliable than 4% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation."

http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0%2C7
"According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, a predecessor of the Western Digital Caviar GP, the Western Digital Caviar WD4000KD , is more reliable than 5% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation. "
 
MadHacker

MadHacker

Distinguished
May 20, 2006
542
0
18,980
I have both Segate and Western Digital drives, 12 drives in 2 machines...
I have had no problems with the Seagate drives yet but had 1 Western Digital drive die on me...
they die.. it happens...

only beef i have with WD is that for their advanced RMA, they will cross ship me a drive... that is fine... I have been waiting over a week now for my replacment drive... and should get it any day. However their charge to replace the drive... should i fail to return the dead drive in time... they wil bill my credit card for $349.99... for a 500 gig drive...

that is just insane... I could easily buy 2 more for that price(Raid edition)

just my 2¢
 
JackNaylorPE

JackNaylorPE

Titan
BANNED
Oct 30, 2004
32,255
14
99,960


They could charge anything they want as long as they credit me when they get it. They'd have a hard time proving their case if they wanted to tho when the HD can be had anywhere for $100.

I'm glad to hear they are cross shipping now....they refused to do so on my last failed WD drive.
 
JackNaylorPE

JackNaylorPE

Titan
BANNED
Oct 30, 2004
32,255
14
99,960


There can't be a "bias" as this is not an editorial process. It's simply users reporting their experiences with particular HD models. If you started a series of polls and said:

"What is your experience with your Whoopdedoo 2000 drive ?
-Failed within 1 year
-Still working after 1 year
-Failed within 2 years
-Still working after 2 years
-Failed within 3 years
-Still working after 3 years

What is your experience with your Badabing 3000 drive ?
-Failed within 1 year
-Still working after 1 year
-Failed within 2 years
-Still working after 2 years
-Failed within 3 years
-Still working after 3 years

And TH published results which showed that users reported twice the failures with the Badabing's as the Whoopdedoo's, how could that be a TH bias ? Of course they could outright lie perhaps but as the survey results change dynamically with each drive added, that seems unlikely.

Of course there could be a bias in the public at large who are perhaps misreporting data when answering questions in the survey.

 
S

San Pedro

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2007
1,286
12
19,295
Well I've never had a WD drive fail on me, but I don't trust anything based on reader feedback.

BTW, I have the new 640gb WD drive and it is working great so far (only had it for a week), and I don't plan on benchmarking it because I could care less about performance (at least for the most part), I'm all about how many gb/$.
 
KyleSTL

KyleSTL

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2007
1,678
0
19,790
About storagereview:

Do they state how many people respond to each drive?
In many cases I think it could be inaccurate because of statistically insignificant data. I agree that it is not 'biased'; but inaccurate, possibly.
 
ZOldDude

ZOldDude

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2006
1,251
1
19,280

They don't buy any one make and use the same HD's you get from Fry's or Newegg.
They run them 24/7 and have constant backups...I think the average drive lived 4 years if I recall.
 
MadHacker

MadHacker

Distinguished
May 20, 2006
542
0
18,980



here is a link

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/18/massive-google-hard-drive-survey-turns-up-very-interesting-thing/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom