Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I need to choose between SEAGATE 7200.12 and WD6400AKS

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 22, 2009 12:17:21 PM

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?
a b G Storage
February 22, 2009 8:53:29 PM

The 7200.12 is faster.
February 23, 2009 5:31:30 AM

7200.12 IT IS!! Buying today.
Related resources
February 23, 2009 6:14:12 AM

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.
a b G Storage
February 23, 2009 12:06:59 PM

I will only say that the words "Seagate" and "Failure" are being used in the very same sentence way too much these days.
February 23, 2009 1:02:53 PM

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 =)
February 23, 2009 1:16:20 PM

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?
a c 353 G Storage
February 23, 2009 3:34:13 PM

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.
February 23, 2009 5:22:04 PM

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.
February 23, 2009 5:33:53 PM

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.
February 23, 2009 5:47:35 PM

I own one seagate drive. The SATA connector broke off. >:|
February 23, 2009 6:44:57 PM

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.
February 23, 2009 7:04:35 PM

Skittle that same thing happened to a Raptor i once had.
a c 353 G Storage
February 24, 2009 2:15:35 AM

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?ArticleI...
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
February 24, 2009 2:55:18 AM

I'd go with the WD6400AKS if those were my only two choices.
February 24, 2009 7:10:54 AM

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.
February 24, 2009 12:25:40 PM

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.
February 24, 2009 2:51:10 PM

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
February 24, 2009 3:05:16 PM

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.
February 24, 2009 4:05:21 PM

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.
a b G Storage
February 24, 2009 4:26:26 PM

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
February 24, 2009 4:28:23 PM

Uh, he already bought it.
a c 353 G Storage
February 24, 2009 4:32:07 PM

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?ArticleI...

Not at newegg yet. Google show 3 place @ Approx $110 give or take $10
February 24, 2009 4:41:53 PM

What is strange about the drive is that it's labeled as ST3500418AS but windows recognizes it as ST3500410AS.
February 24, 2009 5:57:28 PM

RetiredChief, we'll have to wait and see how it performs, and how reliable it is.

yetyhunter, that is a bit odd, but I wouldn't worry about it.
a c 353 G Storage
February 25, 2009 1:36:20 AM

+1
I noteced there were two models, Might check Seagates web site and see if there is a difference - Dought ther is. They probably made some minor change and changed the model #.

Wish they would add a little blurb identifing change/diffrence between models
April 19, 2009 9:29:41 AM

I can only offer this comment about the Seagate 7200.12. I read two reviews, Maximum PC and CPU. Both loved the drive and felt they were far better then the previous .11 series. Also, the speed of the drive nears that of the Velociraptor. Not in all ways of course, the
Raptors are still top of the heap but if you want to get a drive that is fast and packs far more room to work I would not hesitate to go with the Seagate.

Personally, i have two WD Black 1tb 32mb drives but when it came to the operating systems i am going with the Seagate. One because it is faster by far than the WD and i want that for the OS. But two because I can put two operating systems on the same drive partitioned and get far better performance. WD is great but they will never win a spped contest.

Hope this helps. I know I have been going nuts trying to decide because i really wanted a new Velocraptor 300gb but when comparing what you get the Raptor is cheapest at a79.00 I saw on Ebay but the average is about $220.00. The Seagate can be had for very close to $100.00. That did it for me.
April 19, 2009 1:01:01 PM

out of interest does anyone have the 320gb aaks or aals model that they could post the hd tune of?
a c 353 G Storage
April 20, 2009 3:55:17 AM

Latest stats from Newegg, Not looking to promising. Hard to judge if DOA's are seagate's fault and what % are do to "Handling" Looks like Newegg is doing a very poor job of packing HDD's - Seems to show up as a comment on all HDD manuf.

Review Summary (120 reviews):
Excellent 86 reviewsExcellent 71%
Good 8 reviewsGood 7%
Average 2 reviewsAverage 2%
Poor 5 reviewsPoor 4%
Very poor 19 reviewsVery poor 16%
a b G Storage
April 21, 2009 1:37:44 PM

I have 3 of the 7200.12's in a raid 0, It gets about 400~max 330-average 220-min speeds.. with hd-tune pro, hdtach is about 30MB/sec faster on all 3
No problems so far for over a month.
I had a burst rate problem too then I turned on write back caching on the intel raid controller and it went up from 400mb/sec to 2300mb/sec
(not saying that is your problem)


April 21, 2009 5:57:14 PM

Well thanks a lot.

I was a proponent of this drive then heard all the complaints that suddenly popped up and said, OK I guess the Western Digital Black.
Now I know what the problem is so now what? I was about to post to and back off on my original statement now I'm back to the Seagate again. Being a yo yo can hurt. All those ups and downs. Hope your satisfied. Yuk! Seriously though, you make my decision to go with this more appealing. Now I have to make up my mind.

Yep! That's me in the corner all curled up in a ball making the decision. Thank you so much for your information and my confirmation that I was right and so was Maximum PC that recommend this drive for the reasons you stated but i don't think they mentioned the tweaks.


Thank you for the great information. I will now curl up in a ball and shake. I hate making decisions.
July 13, 2009 7:31:39 AM

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

September 27, 2009 11:46:08 PM

I have a 3 month old 7200.12 1Tb which just failed. BIOS recognises the fact the drive has critically failed. I've contacted Seagate to see if it's a similar issue to the failures of the 7200.11 (in the vain hope they can save my data).

Most annoying thing is I'd just ordered 2 more of the drives. So we'll see how they go
December 10, 2009 3:34:21 AM

Avoid Seagate

I've had a terrible problem with reliability of Seagate 7200.10 and 7200.11 drives lately. Specifically, they fail out of RAID all the time. Seagate doesn't say much of anything about this in the public literature, but after multiple RMAs, I contacted them directly and their RMA "Engineer" said that the AS drives were not designed for, and would not be reliable in "Enterprise RAID" which he defined as RAID 5 or RAID 10.
When I pointed out that the RAIDs it was failing out of were on desktops, which these days come with on-board RAID controllers almost universally, he continued to insist that what I was doing was "enterprise".
It's well documented that there are firmware issues, but the real problem is that seagate is selling a product that isn't suitable for a large, and growing, segment of the market: anyone using RAID, and not making it clear that the product won't work reliably in that configuration.
I've been a loyal Seagate customer for decades (all the way back to Shugart Technologies drives in Northstar Horizons), but I have to abandon their products at this point. The combination of disingenuous marketing with testy RMA people (it's the luck of the draw, I've had some who helped, and others who were adamant that it was my fault) means that I can't rely on the things, and I have much better uses for my time than recovering data and waiting for RMAs.
a b G Storage
December 10, 2009 9:16:57 AM

ByrneIT said:
Avoid Seagate

I've had a terrible problem with reliability of Seagate 7200.10 and 7200.11 drives lately. Specifically, they fail out of RAID all the time. Seagate doesn't say much of anything about this in the public literature, but after multiple RMAs, I contacted them directly and their RMA "Engineer" said that the AS drives were not designed for, and would not be reliable in "Enterprise RAID" which he defined as RAID 5 or RAID 10.
When I pointed out that the RAIDs it was failing out of were on desktops, which these days come with on-board RAID controllers almost universally, he continued to insist that what I was doing was "enterprise".
It's well documented that there are firmware issues, but the real problem is that seagate is selling a product that isn't suitable for a large, and growing, segment of the market: anyone using RAID, and not making it clear that the product won't work reliably in that configuration.
I've been a loyal Seagate customer for decades (all the way back to Shugart Technologies drives in Northstar Horizons), but I have to abandon their products at this point. The combination of disingenuous marketing with testy RMA people (it's the luck of the draw, I've had some who helped, and others who were adamant that it was my fault) means that I can't rely on the things, and I have much better uses for my time than recovering data and waiting for RMAs.

The 7200.10 drives are rock solid (I have 8, counting those in external enclosures, and including 6 in various RAID arrays), and did not have a reliability problem. The 7200.11 had issues though, and is best avoided.

The .12 does not have the problems that plagued the .11 series, and although there will be failures with any drive, the .12 does not have an abnormal number of failures compared to any other normal 7200rpm drive.
December 26, 2009 6:14:53 PM

yetyhunter said:
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?

If you plan to use the drives in any RAID configuration, go with Seagate, Western Digital DOES NOT support any desktop drives in RAID: http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std...

WD Enterprise Drives: http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/pop...
July 12, 2010 2:12:14 AM

Unfortunately I beg to differ on the 7200.12 drives (ST3500418AS). These are not reliable if used in a RAID configuration. I have 50% dropout rate, luckly was simply running two seperate RAID 1 (mirrored) configurations on an ARECA 1110 controller.

For WD drives have had good luck with the 'Y' drives (Cavier black) which should work in a RAID configuration. I did see a post that mentioned firmware upgrades but do know our supplier for our Supermicro boxes is using WD SATA drives. These are the typical $80 SATA drive, nothing exotic. Sorry don't have access to check the drive part# for the WD's.

Anyone know if there is a 7200.12 firmware patch for the Seagate drives?
July 30, 2010 2:21:56 AM

bragggf said:
Unfortunately I beg to differ on the 7200.12 drives (ST3500418AS). These are not reliable if used in a RAID configuration.
Anyone know if there is a 7200.12 firmware patch for the Seagate drives?

If you're going to use a drive in Raid, it must support TLEC/ERC/CCTL. Look up Time Limited Error Recovery in Wikipedia. The desktop Seagate drives do not. WD drives support it on a drive-by-drive basis.

!