Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Western Digital Vs. Seagate Barracuda Whats Your Opinion?

Last response: in Storage
Share

Western Digital Vs. Seagate Barracuda

Total: 181 votes (80 blank votes)

  • Western Digital
  • 31 %
  • Seagate Barracuda
  • 70 %
April 8, 2008 1:34:00 AM

Western Digital Vs. Seagate Barracuda Whats Your Opinion, No RAID. (7200 rpm) (500GB)
April 8, 2008 1:57:23 AM

I'm sure they're both good, but I've been using WD for a while, so I feel comfortable with them.
April 8, 2008 2:19:34 AM

Coolio_alert said:
Western Digital Vs. Seagate Barracuda Whats Your Opinion, No RAID. (7200 rpm)



Two of my WD HDs crashed in less than a year. I never have problem with seagate.
Related resources
April 8, 2008 2:23:36 AM

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.
April 8, 2008 2:25:04 AM

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.
April 8, 2008 2:27:08 AM

Remeber To Vote In The Poll! :) 
April 8, 2008 2:43:09 AM

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.
April 8, 2008 3:00:58 AM

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.
April 8, 2008 3:59:59 AM

You may want to check this review out. This may change your mind. It will be my next purchase.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14380/15

"...perhaps the most capable 3.5" hard drive we've ever tested." These are strong words. A no-brainer at $120 via the Egg.
April 8, 2008 4:05:49 AM

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.
April 8, 2008 11:50:49 AM

If I wear to get a Seagate drive, should I get a 7200.10 or 7200.11?
April 9, 2008 6:43:34 AM

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.
April 10, 2008 2:55:37 PM

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.
April 10, 2008 3:25:23 PM

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.





April 10, 2008 3:38:54 PM

T8RR8R said:
For overall performance check out the WD F1 series of HDD's.

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!
a c 114 G Storage
April 10, 2008 4:15:01 PM

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. "
April 10, 2008 4:17:11 PM

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¢
April 10, 2008 4:20:20 PM

for some reason storagereview seems pretty biased.
a c 114 G Storage
April 10, 2008 5:38:09 PM

MadHacker said:
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¢


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.
a c 114 G Storage
April 10, 2008 5:46:03 PM

PSYCHoHoLiC said:
for some reason storagereview seems pretty biased.


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.

April 10, 2008 7:01:41 PM

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/$.
April 10, 2008 7:02:28 PM

Didn't google do a study that found that all hard drives are pretty much equal in failure rate. I think someone posted a link in a different thread.
April 10, 2008 9:23:48 PM

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.
April 10, 2008 10:33:17 PM

San Pedro said:
Didn't google do a study that found that all hard drives are pretty much equal in failure rate. I think someone posted a link in a different thread.

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.
April 11, 2008 1:52:44 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
There can't be a "bias" as this is not an editorial process. It's simply users reporting their experiences with particular HD models.


Well, there is a bias, but it's not StorageReview's. In any survey where you only get a sample of the population, the survey results reflect the people who answered the survey, not everyone. If there are factors that make the sample population different from the whole population, then the survey won't show meaningful results.

For example, suppose that of the people who have failing Raptors, a higher percentage of them go to StorageReview to input their experience than the people who have working Raptors. Thus, the StorageReview survey could reflect a higher failure rate than actually exists in the field.

With the low sample size of the StorageReview survey (I think I saw somewhere where there's only 140 data points for one of the Raptors), this makes the sample results all the more likely to deviate from the population.

In short, I don't think the StorageReview results can be trusted because of these statistical factors.
April 11, 2008 3:01:01 PM

CUDA
April 11, 2008 4:38:18 PM

PSYCHoHoLiC said:
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.

http://img.techpowerup.org/080410/post-54-63263-54656.jpg


MY 7200.11 posts better HD Tach scores. I'll post a screenshot tonight. Those are still very nice numbers
April 11, 2008 4:40:09 PM

KyleSTL said:
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!


I have a 500GB AAKS in a 2.5 Ghz Phenom Build and an F1 in a stock e6600 build. The F1 wins in every test.

I am pleased with both drives, but the AAKS is one of the loudest HDDs I have owned.
April 11, 2008 5:26:11 PM

i voted for WD, had a couple of them in my every build...from 10 in the las 4 or so ears 3 failed in warranty and one after 5 years
April 11, 2008 7:00:34 PM

From the perspective of doing hard drive data recovery, I find that it is six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Western Digital drives tend to have more blown PCBs and are very difficult to find matching donor drives.

Seagate drives tend to have seized motors, which makes the recovery effort very difficult and somewhat more expensive.

In either case, both brands of drive are very good. I tend to purchase Seagate, simply because of the 5 year warranty despite the fact that they are now a competitor in the data recovery business.
April 11, 2008 7:22:57 PM

TSIMonster said:
I have a 500GB AAKS in a 2.5 Ghz Phenom Build and an F1 in a stock e6600 build. The F1 wins in every test.

I am pleased with both drives, but the AAKS is one of the loudest HDDs I have owned.

That great, however, the 5000AAKS is NOT PMR. The only drives currently that are PMR in WD's non-server lineup are: 6400AAKS, 3200AAKS (B3 rev), 7500AAKS, 1TB GP, 750GB GP. That is why the F1 wins.
April 11, 2008 7:35:04 PM

I'd like to see that, considering the 7200.11 has never scored that high in any reviews. It may score better in burst however.

TSIMonster said:
MY 7200.11 posts better HD Tach scores. I'll post a screenshot tonight. Those are still very nice numbers
April 11, 2008 7:36:57 PM

Having had scores of both Seagates and WD's, I have not had a problem with either and like both. They are both excellent brands.
April 12, 2008 1:05:29 AM

7200.11 super good drive - cause i have one ;) 
April 12, 2008 4:40:13 AM

PSYCHoHoLiC said:
I'd like to see that, considering the 7200.11 has never scored that high in any reviews. It may score better in burst however.




That is what it just ran. It is definitely very competitive with the AAKS drive. I don't think you can go wrong on either one for the price!
April 12, 2008 5:34:18 AM

I currently have 8 WD drives, including 2 raptors that are 5 years old and a 120GB IDE drive that is even older (2001ish maybe?). of all of them only the 120GB drive bothers me, I get occasional grinding noises from it, and there 1 250 GB drive that is 4 now, that I dont know if its a drive issue or a MB issue. every 8 months or so it stops working when its an external drive, but it works fine in an enclosure. the only drives I have ever see fail were 1 Samsung, in my dad's PC and 6 Seagates, in a PC owned by one of my dads friends. we eventually traced that back to his wifes habit of just shutting the PC down by cutting power at the power strip.
April 12, 2008 3:38:51 PM

e36_Jeff said:
we eventually traced that back to his wifes habit of just shutting the PC down by cutting power at the power strip.

:non: 
Bad wife, no computer!
April 12, 2008 4:00:40 PM

Very nice! I wonder why the reviewers cant get it that high, different firmware maybe?

TSIMonster said:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/TSIMonster/Untitled.jpg

That is what it just ran. It is definitely very competitive with the AAKS drive. I don't think you can go wrong on either one for the price!

a c 114 G Storage
April 12, 2008 6:28:00 PM



That link says the exact opposite.

"notable patterns showed that failure rates are indeed definitely correlated to drive manufacturer, model, and age; failure rates did not correspond to drive usage except in very young and old drives (i.e. heavy data "grinding" is not a significant factor in failure);"
April 14, 2008 12:56:24 AM

Looks Like I'm Going Seagate!
April 14, 2008 1:44:26 PM

I'm a fan of Seagate, not only because of the five year warranty but because I have a bad experience with Western Digital (WD). One morning my first and only WD drive that I had just didn't work and it was only a few months old. When I contacted customer service with the error code I received from the WD diagnostic tool they said they couldn't help. No exchange, no repair, nothing. Apparently it had an ATA lock and they don't consider that a defect or problem, even though I could no longer use it. They indicated it may be a software problem and I should contact the software vendor of whatever application caused the problem... but I wasn't running anything that I know of that would have caused that. I don't know how the ATA lock occurred, but if you research it you'll find it's a security feature built into the ATA specification and nothing I know of can be done to fix it unless you know the password. I'm not sure it's really WD's problem, but as of now the only thing I can think of that might have caused it is faulty hardware. I have tried several methods of unlocking the drive, but nothing worked so far. (Does anyone have any suggestions?) For my next drive I bought a Seagate and haven't had a problem with it... one drive's about six years old now and another is two years old. I apologize for the "rant", but an experience like this makes me wonder how customer service would compare between the two vendors... I really felt that they should have replaced it because I didn't do anything that I can recall to have caused a problem like that.
April 14, 2008 2:32:04 PM

Well, the warranty didn't help in my case anyway. It was still under warranty and Western Digital said they still couldn't help. Also, according to this retail drive at NewEgg the manufacturer warranty for Western Digital is only one year: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Am I missing something? (never mind, figured it out - RE series only, RE doesn't mean retail).
a b G Storage
April 14, 2008 3:03:50 PM

If it has to be 500GB, I'd prefer a Seagate 7200.11 over a WD5000AAKS. I have the WD5000AAKS and it works fine, but it is visibly slower than my newer WD7500AAKS. It doesn't have PMR. Seagate 7200.11 and WD7500AAKS and WD6400AAKS do have it.

If I were to buy a new HDD drive now it would be a WD6400AAKS. It's got the best price/performance ratio I know of.
a b G Storage
April 14, 2008 3:05:27 PM

Croatoan said:
Well, the warranty didn't help in my case anyway. It was still under warranty and Western Digital said they still couldn't help. Also, according to this retail drive at NewEgg the manufacturer warranty for Western Digital is only one year: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Am I missing something? (never mind, figured it out - RE series only, RE doesn't mean retail).


Nope, it means RAID Edition. Those are supposed to be pretty reliable drives.
April 14, 2008 3:22:47 PM

You really can't go wrong with either. I mean, I ordered another 7200.10 320 for RAID when I ordered vista and it was DOA, at the same time my other 320 has been going strong for a long time now with at least 10 hours of use per day.
April 14, 2008 3:36:23 PM

Coolio_alert said:
Western Digital Vs. Seagate Barracuda Whats Your Opinion, No RAID. (7200 rpm) (500GB)


my roommate had two Seagate 500GBs die on him in the past 2 months (one only 1 week old, the other one 3 months old)

WD Raid Edition (RE designated drives) are designed for 24-hour operation and have 5 year warranties.

I also had a Seagate 160GB die on me a few computers ago (only 4 months old).

Haven't had ANY WDs die on me.
April 14, 2008 4:42:04 PM

I've used drives from both WD and Seagate for years. last year I had a WD that was DOA, but all the rest have worked fine. My present gamer uses a Raptor for the C drive and a Seagate for the D drive, so I'm fairly open to both companies. I voted for the Seagate as the oldest drive I'm currently using is a 7 year old Seagate. And yes, everything is fully backed up, so if it fails, no data would be lost when failure finally does occur. Mostly I shop sales for good prices on drives from these companies.

I've also used IBM and Hitachi drives with success. The only really bad drive company I've experienced is Maxtor, with one drive failing at 2 weeks and the replacement failing at about a year.
April 14, 2008 5:46:11 PM

KyleSTL said:
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!


I was just looking at the charts on THG and the F1's seems pretty much on the upper end of averages. I also told the OP to look into them, not that I suggested them as if I thought they kicked buttox. Good to know about high failure rates, but you'd think that would have been fixed since their release. Who knows though?

Also I've only had WD drives so I agree with the later half of your statement. I've never owned any other brand have never had a failure. Although I don't keep drives longer than 5 years on average so I couldn't make a statement on total longevity, quality and reliability.
!