/ Sign-up
Your question

Which Hard-Drive brand should I buy?

  • Hard Drives
  • Western Digital
  • Samsung
  • Storage
  • Product
Last response: in Storage
October 30, 2008 12:02:31 PM


I need to buy a 1TB hard-drive.

I have SATA.

I need an internal one.

Here is where I'm looking at to make my decision:

I need the following;

Good quality

Please tell me which of the following brands I should chose;

Western Digital
Western Digital AV
Samsung/Samsung 2

Please reply ASAP as I need the space!

Thanks in advance,


More about : hard drive brand buy

a b G Storage
October 30, 2008 8:58:01 PM

I decided over 15 years ago to use WD exclusively and I've never been sorry.
Related resources
October 30, 2008 9:02:00 PM

ram1009 said:
I decided over 15 years ago to use WD exclusively and I've never been sorry.

Both WD and Seagate make very good drives. I chose that one because it was the highest-scoring 1TB drive on several benchmarks, and because I've read very good reviews on it.
October 30, 2008 10:35:11 PM

I would Recommend WD, best alround performance, the bad thing is that they do not have the biggest hd on the market.
a b G Storage
October 30, 2008 11:38:34 PM

WD are good performing drives but i can't really say much sense i never had a HDD fail on me in my life and i had mostly maxtor and WD hard drives
October 31, 2008 4:57:08 AM

Thanks for the suggestions guys.

I currently have a WD IDE (400GB), and a Maxtor SATA (500GB).

It's obvious which performs better... but then again, much different technologies!


PS: Perhaps I should just go for Seagate, so I can say I'm 'testing' different brands!
October 31, 2008 9:38:52 AM

Got some more info;



Maxtor is now owned by Seagate.
November 2, 2008 7:03:07 AM

After completing a polless poll, I came up with the following results;

4 - Hitachi
13 - Western Digital
11 - Seagate

Winner: Western Digital

So I'll be getting Western Digital now.

Probably two separate 500GB ones in RAID 0 (as per Arne's suggestion).

Thanks for all suggestions,

November 2, 2008 5:54:30 PM

go with WD's 640gb drives, they are MUCH faster
you wont be disappointed with those, i promise
November 2, 2008 6:26:38 PM

typerazor said:
go with WD's 640gb drives, they are MUCH faster
you wont be disappointed with those, i promise

November 3, 2008 5:17:51 AM

How much faster?

Also, I'd end up with 1.24TB instead of 1TB.

1TB is more than enough for me.... also I have 900GB of other hard-disk space spread out over 2 hard-drives (IDE - 400GB and SATA - 500GB).

November 3, 2008 9:24:46 AM

Panarchy said:
How would two of these disks look?

I found out that 640GB Hard-Drives are both faster and cheaper than the 500GB ones (at least for WesternDigital)

Please tell me what you think...

Thanks in advance,


If they're cheaper than the 500gb HD's, I'd get them. It's always better to have too much hard drive space than too little.
November 3, 2008 10:44:18 AM

^Just checked, seems to be $8 more expensive...

I'll end up having to much either way :pt1cable: 

The main reason I'm getting them is cause they're faster :p 
November 3, 2008 7:19:00 PM

IMO they're worth the extra money.
November 4, 2008 5:04:51 AM


Also got recommended Samsung by my teacher... so I guess I have to go with Samsung.

November 4, 2008 12:15:02 PM

I've never had good experience with samsung hard drives, but maybe that's just me.
a b G Storage
a b Ô Samsung
November 4, 2008 7:51:26 PM

I have experienced HDD failure on many occasions - may be unlucky, maybe have too many :) 

WD have excellent customer service and fast replacement polices (i.e will ship before they recieve)

Maxtor - well they're policies may as well be written on toilet paper :) 
November 4, 2008 11:08:00 PM


Ah I've got another question, what exactly will RAID 0 do for me?

Because I have found that the cheap 500GB are 16MB Cache, yet the cheap 1TB are 32MB Cache.

And if all RAID 0 does is double the cache... well you understand what I am asking.

Is that what RAID 0 does? To make it (almost) double the speed?


PS: The 1TB are a little cheaper than 2 500GB. About $11 difference in price...
November 4, 2008 11:15:02 PM

Raid 0 doesn't just double the cache. It stripes the data across two different drives, so it can have higher transfer speeds. It usually doesn't have a 100% speed increase, but if you have a good sata controller it can be close to double.
November 5, 2008 12:23:58 AM


So would I be better off with the 2 500GB in RAID0 or the 1 1TB one?

($11 cheaper to get the 1TB one!)
November 5, 2008 12:44:09 AM

IMO it depends on your motherboard. Raid on most intel motherboards is very good, and a lot better than a single drive. On the other hand, raid on my board (780i) sucks, and it would be better to get a single, larger drive.
November 5, 2008 3:52:43 AM


My motherboard is an Asus P5K-E WiFi

November 9, 2008 7:00:47 AM

WD's are quieter than seagates though i think ^^
November 9, 2008 11:33:07 AM

Haven't ever had a issue with a WD, first and only brand that I'll ever use.
a b G Storage
December 11, 2008 6:21:46 PM

the thing with RAID 0 is the odds of loosing data to disk failure will go up.

In a raid 0 if any one of the HDD's fail you will loose all your data. any data left one the working hard drive would be useless
December 12, 2008 9:19:20 AM

ive had issues with maxtor and seagate so now i only run wd.

is two 1tb out of the question? run as raid 1 and let them mirror rather than one big drive.
a b G Storage
December 15, 2008 9:17:52 PM

that would be good for a failsafe feature. there is only a small performance hit with RAID 1 because of writing to 2 disks at the same time
December 16, 2008 4:03:31 AM

Just wondering, why would you want to set up RAID arrays ?

I am using 2 80 GB HDDs, one SATS, one IDE and I think they run fine, no sound , quite much speed.
a b G Storage
December 19, 2008 12:03:41 AM

There are really only two kinds of hard drives-
the ones that have already failed and the ones that are going to fail in the future.

The quality and reliability of most of the brands goes up and down with time. I've seen LOTS of failed drives over the years. All of the brands that have had best reliability are gone now- couldn't compete with their higher quality. (Control Data, Micropolis, IBM, Fujitsu, etc.) Seagate used to be one of the lower quality brands, then they bought control data and that brought their quality up. Maxtor has always been better than average. IBM was good then they sold to Hitachi and their quality went downhill a little. Samsung is a relative newcomer. WesternDigital has always been pretty good.