Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Seagate 7200.12 and Western Digital Caviar Black

Last response: in Storage
Share
March 22, 2009 1:00:30 AM

I would like to know some differences between the Seagate 7200.12 500gb and the Western Digital Caviar Black 500gb. - I can not find anything on google.
1. What is the difference between the platter sizes??
2. What are the read speed differences??
3. What are the write speed differences??
4. What are the access speed differences??

5. Which one is the most reliable??
6. Which one is the fastest overall??

Links:
Seagate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Westeern Digital: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Comparison: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submi...

TIA
March 22, 2009 1:14:19 AM

Just look at toms charts for dar drives and they will answer all you want to know
March 22, 2009 1:21:16 AM

The Western Digital Caviar Black 640gb is much better than both of those.
Related resources
March 22, 2009 3:35:24 AM

This makes me think to hard...
After reading an article on a forum I found out the following:
The Seagate has a faster read speed, is mlre effecient, and is quieter.
The Caviar Black writes faster, boots faster, loads games faster, and is more reliable.
Overall, I think the choice is personal, but I am most likely going to go for the Caviar Black because my build will be a single HDD set up so I can not afford a screw up. It also has more pros than the Seagate.
The confusing part is that the specs look so much better for the Seagate its just that it does not perform well at all.
The Caviar Black will be my choice unless $10 changes y budget. Lol
a b G Storage
March 22, 2009 4:33:19 AM

The seagate drive has a much slower data access speed. There is also a firmware issue with that particular model. If it doesn't have the updated firmware you will need to update it.

Overall, I don't think there is any question which is better. WD is by far the best quality. Specially the cavair black series. +1 to the suggestion of the 640Gb black drive. It's the best price/performance drive available.
March 22, 2009 7:54:42 AM

There is no firmware issue with the 7200.12's. also the difference in access times would be barely noticable in real world apps
a b G Storage
March 22, 2009 11:31:01 AM

WD
a b G Storage
March 22, 2009 12:20:39 PM

Good catch Homeboy. My fault, it's the 7200.11 that had the firmware problem. The 7200.12 is the same drive with the updated firmware. But here is a good review on the seagate.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16472/12
a c 353 G Storage
March 22, 2009 4:23:34 PM

A little caution on reviews at newegg: (1) a couple of the 1/2 eggers I think are aimed at the -11 (Misplaced). (2) I have a feeling that a number of the DOA's are do to Newegg's pis*poor packing on the drives - THIS applies to WD's DOA's also. The short term results indicate a improved reliability rating - BUT hard to say on long term.

Hard to find reviews for the -12's here is one on the 500 Gig drive.
Tom's chart does not have the -12 (at least didn't last time I looked.
www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleI...

aford10 - disagree, as the -12 has a higher density per platter than the -11.
Also could not find any review of the 750 Gig -12. Two platters vs 1 for the 500 gig, but 32 Meg cache for the 750 vs 16 Meg Cache for the -11.
Don't believe cache makes a big diff inwhich case the 500 may be a better performer than the 750.
March 23, 2009 1:01:40 AM

I'll post my benchmarks because I have two .12s

HD Tune: Seagate ST3500410AS Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 66.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 128.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 104.4 MB/sec
Access Time : 15.3 ms
Burst Rate : 86.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 66.5%


HD Tune: Seagate ST3500410AS Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 63.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 130.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 104.1 MB/sec
Access Time : 15.6 ms
Burst Rate : 127.3 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 68.5%


March 27, 2009 3:14:35 PM

I just bought the 7200.12. Pros: dead silent. But there's a price to pay for that. Seagate locked the drive in its "quietest mode" in order to compete with the WD "Green" models; very fast sequential transfer rates. But keep in mind that transfer rates are in contrast to random access rates which brings up a con. The RAR for the Seagate is noticably slower than the competition. As a result of that the file copy rates -which is your bread and butter in terms of performance- is very slow.

So despite the data density, single platter 500GB drive the Seagate agains falls short as a performance drive compared to others. I'm keeping my 7200.12 for a data drive.


Another note. I bought the WD Velociraptor and I'm returning it. A year ago or so it was the performance king. But 7200 technology has improved to the point where the performance difference between the new 500GB - 1TB drives is so small that the price premium for the Velo isn't worth it. My mistake. its going back I'm getting a 640 or a 1TB WD black.
April 27, 2009 4:26:28 PM

kiniku said:
I just bought the 7200.12. Pros: dead silent. But there's a price to pay for that. Seagate locked the drive in its "quietest mode" in order to compete with the WD "Green" models; very fast sequential transfer rates. But keep in mind that transfer rates are in contrast to random access rates which brings up a con. The RAR for the Seagate is noticably slower than the competition. As a result of that the file copy rates -which is your bread and butter in terms of performance- is very slow.

So despite the data density, single platter 500GB drive the Seagate agains falls short as a performance drive compared to others. I'm keeping my 7200.12 for a data drive.



Kiniku, so if you could go back in time would you get the WD Caviar Black instead? Do you think that the Seagate 7200.12 1TB (2 platters of 500 GB) and 32mb cache would perform better than the 500GBand 16 mb cache?
a b G Storage
December 12, 2009 10:01:53 PM

March 2, 2010 5:15:02 AM

The specs for the Caviar Black are published on Western Digital's website. Looks like a SATA I (1.5GB/s) controller card would be more than enough to optimally handle either the SATA II or the SATA III drives without an I/O bottleneck.

http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/?id=120&type=8
!