I need to choose between SEAGATE 7200.12 and WD6400AKS

[yetyhunter]

Wich one is faster Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB ST3500418AS (1 500 GB platter)I can get it for 60Euros
OR
Western digital WD6400AKS (2 320 GB platters) 72 euros

Wich one is faster?

 

[cjl]

The 7200.12 is faster.

 

[yetyhunter]

7200.12 IT IS!! Buying today.

 

[Zorg]

The 7200.11s have an atrocious failure rate. The jury is still out on the 7200.12s. The 6400AAKS is a known good drive with an average read speed of about 90MB/sec., which is no slouch.

 

[jitpublisher]

I will only say that the words "Seagate" and "Failure" are being used in the very same sentence way too much these days.

 

[Squall117]

I have a WD 80 Gb IDE drive that'd been running for than 3 years already.
I have never lost a single byte of data until now, It's a little noisy since a couple of months but other than that it's in perfect condition.
Download, delete, defrag, format, install/uninstall. He's a good boy =)

 

[yetyhunter]

I have a 3 year old 250GB seagate and it's still running great.NEVER had any problems with it.
I bought the seagte today.Format done,now i'm partititioning then formating partitition.
Can I copy the OS from my current drive to the smaller partition?and use it from there,along with the other files on the larger part?

 

[RetiredChief]

Yetyhunnter - I think you will be happy with your choise.

+1 to Zorg, I have been thinking of getting a new pair of hardrives and although I have been very pleased with Segate - I ruled out the Dot11's due to high DOAs.

I was/I'm seriously considering the WD black 640 w/32 M Cache. I like the performance gain of Segate's .12 Nice jump over .11's. Would like to see a comparison of the WD 640 w/32 Meg Cache and the Segate ST3750528SA (750 Gig .12 w/32 Meg cache.

Newegg does not have that model in stock yet,

Other comments: DOA's (1 and 2 eggs) for the 500 Gig .12 are still higher (16%) than the WD (9%) BUT about half of the .11's; However sample # is still low 69 vs 227 for WD. (Note: A large % of DOA's are probably a result of handling and poor pakaging at Newegg - BUT is the same for both drives and a lower DOA for one would probable be to "ruggedness/quality of model.

Not sure of the performance gain of going from a 16Meg cache to a 32 Meg cache.
Specifically, the cost diff between segate's 500G w/16 Meg cache ($65) and 750 Gig w/32Meg Cache (Approx $110) (If size is ajusted only $15 diff between the two.

Have to go to work.

 

[Zorg]

Yeah, the 7200.11 did have a major problem. Seagate downplayed it to a mild problem that was fixed with a BIOS update, that wasn't even necessary. See it here.

I agree, the jury is still out on the 7200.12s. We need a bigger pool to get an accurate understanding.

If it was just a firmware problem, then they shouldn't suffer the same fate.


I do like those WD6401AALS drives, they work well.

 

[Virtues]

Seagate's 7200.12 is faster due to faster random access time and better read and write times but its really the random access time that put's the performance at a noticeable difference. Seagate's 7200.11 was faster for the same reason but had a high falure rate or something.

imo doesn't matter too much if you are planning to use ACHI instead of IDE emulated for your sata set up

In terms of 7200rpm models seagate's is usually faster and WD is usually more reliable. I only have 2 WD 1tb green HDD's because they are slient and for storage so speed isn't nessary and 1 Seagate for os and everything else.

 

[skittle]

I own one seagate drive. The SATA connector broke off. >:|

 

[IzzyCraft]

How the hell does that even happen? That is either some piss poor shipping, like guys using your HDD as skaes or you tried to plug in a sata connection backwards and wouldn't give up.

 

[grieve]

Skittle that same thing happened to a Raptor i once had.

 

[RetiredChief]

Here's a review of the -12 comparing it to the -11 (Tom's hardrive list does not include the -12), But by looking at the performance of the -11, then add the performance increase will give a good idea.

As Zorg said the jury is still out, but it looks promising.

www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=24888
added:
The test drive was the 500Gig/16 Meg Cache and I think it's a single plater. The 750Gig model, ST3750528AS, (not readably avail - Found at 2 places for approx $110) has 32 Gig cache and probably 2 platters

 

[megamanx00]

I'd go with the WD6400AKS if those were my only two choices.

 

[yetyhunter]

I got the seagate.The difference is HUGE.Windows starts up faster,games load up faster,file coping,pasting is faster;Everything is much more responsive.I will post benchmarks soon.

 

[50bmg]

I just RMA'd my 500G seagate 7200.11. I downloaded the firmware update, but it would not install. My HD hadnt crashed yet, luckily. The HD was getting very buggy and would not boot sometimes. The firmware update should fix most drives if you get it installed early.

 

[yetyhunter]

[img=http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/2328/hdtune.th.jpg]

I think the burst rate is not right.Only 119?? Any ideas to fix it?
What is the latest/best firmware?
I have CC33

 

[Zorg]

I don't think there is a firmware update. That was only for the few :lol: 7200.11s that had a "firmware" problem.

The burst rate is only for the data in the HD cache/buffer, it's not a big deal, let it eat. I notice the CPU usage is a little high, depending on your CPU.


Here are screen shots of the 6400AAKS and 6401AALS. I installed a 6401AALS in another PC and it got average read of ~100MB/sec. I got cheated. :lol:

P45-DS3L - Q6600 @ 3G 1333 - RAM @ 800

P45-UD3R - Q6600 @ 3.2G 1600 - RAM @ 800

 

[yetyhunter]

So I made the good choice my hdd is faster?
For the CPU usage I have an E8400@3600 mhz.
I can't belive how quiet it is.I can't hear it at all.I only hear the fans.

 

[Zorg]

I think your CPU usage is a little high (not a lot), but there's nothing you can do about it. It may just be the drive.

Yes, the drive is faster by ~10MB sec. Note that the access time for the 6400AAKS is 12.1ms instead of 14.4ms for your 7200.12. This will cancel out some of the difference in everyday usage. To quantify the net result you would need to run some of the benchmarks that THG runs in their HD charts. That's probably not worth the time. I thought the 7200.12s were faster than that.

If the drive doesn't flake like the 7200.11s, then it's as good a choice as any and better than most.

 

[dextermat]

Because of the problems seagate has had with firmware scrapping hard drives, id buy WD ,

Havent seen any WD drives die for more than 4 years now (Last one was a used 40 go)

You should look at review on google to assure yourself that the seagate drive is good and has goos firmware

 

[Zorg]

Uh, he already bought it.

 

[RetiredChief]

Zorg
I think the avg access time is due to the two platter vs the single platter for the Seagate drive. Believe the 750 Gig version has 2 platers and increase the cashe to 32 Gigs. This would improve the Random Acess time and improve the Burst Rate, although burst rate probably isn't that important.

www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=24888&PageId=3

Not at newegg yet. Google show 3 place @ Approx $110 give or take $10

 

[yetyhunter]

What is strange about the drive is that it's labeled as ST3500418AS but windows recognizes it as ST3500410AS.