Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WD Caviar Black vs Barracuda 7200.12

Last response: in Storage
Share
May 12, 2009 6:48:34 PM

So it's about time to get a larger hard disk. Will probably use this as my main system disk. Likely won't be doing any Raid setup as I've never really messed with it before. So it would probably be a single drive I'd be ordering.

Currently I'm using a WD 400GB Sata 3 drive which is great (nice and quiet too).

I'm considering these two drives:

Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST31000528AS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Price being the same on each, I've been looking at reviews and benchmarks. Unfortunately I seem to be finding conflicting information. Some sites seem to show the Barracuda being faster, and others show the Caviar Black as being faster.

My understanding is that the Seagate 7200.11 drives are the ones that had the Firmware issues. Supposadly the 7200.12 drives no longer are victim to this plague.

Anyone have any expert knowledge on which of these drives is the better drive performance wise? I'm sorta leaning toward the WD Caviar Black, as I've always had great luck with WD. I've had a single Seagate drive before, but their ownership in Maxtor bothers me. Every Maxtor drive I ever owned was a piece of junk, and noisy to boot.

My system is used 90% for gaming. I play Age of Conan right now, but sometimes will play Crysis, CoD, Farcry, etc depending on if I get bored. :)  My current system specs are below in my sig.
May 12, 2009 6:54:38 PM

Don't let the Maxtor thing bother you, Seagate makes great drives. I've had a lot of Seagate drives, I have 3 in my system right now including 2 7200.11 drives, and they are very good. That being said I don't think you can go wrong with either, just pick the one your more comfortable with.
a b G Storage
May 13, 2009 12:29:35 AM

The Seagate drives are quite good, and as far as I know, they have fixed the issues that plagued the 7200.11 series. You can't go wrong with the Caviar Black either though - I have one of the 1TB Caviar Blacks in my computer as a storage drive right now, and I love it. It's an excellent drive.

Honestly, I'd say go for either one. They are both excellent drives. IIRC, the caviar black is a bit faster in random access, but the Seagate is a bit faster in normal desktop applications (probably because of slightly different firmware tweaking).
Related resources
May 13, 2009 12:52:49 AM

I agree with cjl. I too went with a Wester Digital 1Tb caviar black...
May 13, 2009 2:44:06 AM

Well apparently the price on the WD drive went up $10 between the time I posted this thread earlier today, and this evening. Not sure what the deal is with Newegg on that one. Kinda irks me ;) 

I'm going to take a chance on the Seagate drive. Now that it's $10 less, and the performance between the two seems to be reasonably a toss-up. Aside from the 7200.11 troubles, Seagate I know is generally a reliable product.

Besides, cooler and power power efficient (two platters instead of three) is good I suppose. :) 
a b G Storage
May 13, 2009 2:51:57 AM

both are good. both make you happy.

seagate is abit newer technology, uses less power and has higher throughput,


WD has slightly better seek time and IOPS
May 13, 2009 3:53:48 AM

Well, I guess this thread brought up deamand LOL. Making them raise the price.
May 13, 2009 6:34:57 PM

Well now that I already ordered the Seagate drive, NewEgg.com and reduced the WD Caviar Black 1TB to $99 again. I don't know what their problem is, but I'm a little annoyed by this.

They had it at $99, then $109, and now $99 again. All within 24 hours.
May 13, 2009 7:47:42 PM

You could cancel, and get it before they ship you the segate. What seagate did you get anyway?
a b G Storage
May 13, 2009 8:00:36 PM

seagate denied there was a problem with the 7200.11 and then botched the fix when they were forced to respond

They wont be getting any more of my business
May 13, 2009 8:32:43 PM

thats why i was asking the model. I love Western Digital.
May 13, 2009 9:46:16 PM

I did in fact end up calling NewEgg's 1-800 number. Good folks. Their website says once they charge your card you cannot change your order. I called them, explained that they had changed the price on their WD drive, and then changed it back. They allowed me to cancel my Seagate (7200.12) order and voided my transaction.

I was tempted to order two drives and try a Raid 0 (It'll be for gaming and won't have personal/business/sensitive data). Never done a Raid setup, so I'm not sure if the Caviar Black is even good for Raid 0 or not.

Anyhow, I splurged and ordered two (2) of the WD Caviar Black 1TB drives. Worst case, if I can't get them to work in Raid 0 I can use one for my system/gaming needs, and use the other for my growing stash of video footage of my kids. :) 

And the Seagate drive I was looking at (and originally ordered) was the newer 7200.12 version. LOL I've heard enough about the 7200.11 drives I wouldn't even try it. Just asking for trouble there.
May 13, 2009 10:39:26 PM

LOL That was my idea when I wanted to do my first build, but decided to save my $100 and just buy 1 Caviar blk 1Tb. So I only have 1 HDD.
a b G Storage
May 14, 2009 12:37:09 AM

three words.

five.. year.. warrenty.

go with the blacks.
May 14, 2009 2:10:14 AM

I think either of them would be very good drives but at least your mind is at ease.

It takes a lifetime to build a reputation but a few seconds (or a bad product) to ruin it. Before the 7200.11 issue I would imagine you wouldn't have thought twice but unfortunately for Seagate they had that problem and now a lot of people are shying away from them. They had a great reputation and I think it might take until the 7200.13 with no issues with the 7200.12 for them to regain it.

I am biased toward Seagate but I feel both companies are very good, Seagate just always seems to be one step ahead until the whole 7200.11 issue. As I said before , I have 2 7200.11's and I've never had a problem as well as about a dozen other Seagate drives that still work but are too small to be useful.
May 14, 2009 3:17:39 AM

Seagate has always been a reliable brand so far as I know. I'm not really hesitant to order a 7200.12 due to the failure of the 7200.11. For me it's mainly making sure I'm getting the right drive. I've looked at several benchmarks, some say the Seagate is faster, some say the Caviar Black is faster. All seems to depend on which benchmark software that site used.

Either way, I've owned more WD drives than anything else, and I've read more recommendations for the WD drive. Had I not seen the Caviar Black on sale as well, I'd probably have simply ordered the Seagate 7200.12 :) 

Either way, at least I've got two good drives en route, and the five year warranty is just sorta nice to know.
May 14, 2009 4:10:42 AM

I have to say that it's a little disturbing because Seagate always had a 5yr warranty and everyone else had 3yrs. Now, since the 7200.11 thing, Seagate is 3yrs with their 7200.12 and WD has gone to 5yrs. I expect a hard drive to last until it's speed or capacity is obsolete and 3yrs just doesn't do it. It is a little troublesome that they put out a product with some issues and then gave themselves a 2yr buffer to protect against the fact that they might have an issue in the future. If you have faith in the product your producing then you won't have a problem guaranteeing that product.

Maybe it's just the fact that Seagate is a bigger company and when you get to a certain point you cover your ass but I'm reminded of recently I called Logitech about one of the keys not working on my keyboard and they sent me a whole new set (keyboard and mouse combo). Customer loyalty and word of mouth will go much further to build your business than watch your ass.
a b G Storage
May 14, 2009 6:12:11 AM

^^ ive lost faith in logitech. they build inferior products now. at one point they were rock solid, but i swear they build everything to break now. im done with logitech.
May 14, 2009 2:10:43 PM

neon neophyte said:
^^ ive lost faith in logitech. they build inferior products now. at one point they were rock solid, but i swear they build everything to break now. im done with logitech.

I have quite a few of their products and they all seem to be very good. I've had nothing but good experience with them so we'll see if that continues.
May 14, 2009 7:52:16 PM

I own Maxtor and Seagate HDD's. I just ordered a WD Caviar Black 1TB and received it a few days ago. I have not yet installed the new WD HDD yet since my new MOBO is on back order.
I got 2 Seagate Barracudas 7200.11 500GB in a RAID 0 config. and will be making a RAID 1 with the Seagate HDD's while using the new WD for OS and Games and stuff. I never had a Seagate failing but I had a Maxtor failing. It was one of the Diamondmax 60GB HDD. I used to own 2 of them and I wanted to use them in RAID. At that time I owned the Asus P4C800E-Deluxe MOBO and the RAID constantly failed (like every 2 weeks or so on boot the RAID was corrupt...). I decided to not touch RAID anymore and was not sure if it was because of my HDD's or my MOBO.

I own lots of Logitech products. I always had Logitech Mice. I just recently got the G9 Mouse and the G15 Keyboard. Love them both. Especially the G15, it is nice to have a LCD screen and have extra info while gaming like GPU & CPU temps.

I did have a Logitech wireless Keyboard that failed on me (not sure which model) but that was a long time ago.

a c 353 G Storage
May 14, 2009 8:05:33 PM

In reference to warrenties:
1. Not a bit of difference between an end item with a 3 year warrenty and the same item with a five year warrent - Except cost. The same end item with a five year warrenty cost the company more than that same item with a 3 year warrent. Ex. when I had a side job repairing TVs. Went to the distributor to buy a replacement CRT, the salesman plunked the CRT on the counter - Cost was based on lenght of warrenty SAME daggburn boobtube.

2. Item dies two days after warrenty expires. Some companies use to spend more on "Engineering" a failure time frame than new developement to boast turnover. Case in point (20 years ago). company XXX 1.5 D cell, They had to add impurities to the paste (C-Zn) battery so that it would failure before the "More expensive" Cell.

--- For HDD drives I think #1 applies. Most HDDs will last beyound the "5 year point" and length of warrenty is more a marketing point - Which you pay for - even though manfu knows it should last well beyound the warrenty time. Most people upgrade HDD due to performance and size vs failure of the drive (Maybe not quite Maytag, but close enough for government work )

Still have some 20/40 gig drives arround, and at work have a stash of 8 gig SCSI drives.
Bear in mind all brands have produced exceptional drives AND poor drives. When it comes to HDDs I have NO Loyalty
May 18, 2009 8:47:52 PM

ausch30 said:
I think either of them would be very good drives but at least your mind is at ease.

It takes a lifetime to build a reputation but a few seconds (or a bad product) to ruin it. Before the 7200.11 issue I would imagine you wouldn't have thought twice but unfortunately for Seagate they had that problem and now a lot of people are shying away from them. They had a great reputation and I think it might take until the 7200.13 with no issues with the 7200.12 for them to regain it.

I am biased toward Seagate but I feel both companies are very good, Seagate just always seems to be one step ahead until the whole 7200.11 issue. As I said before , I have 2 7200.11's and I've never had a problem as well as about a dozen other Seagate drives that still work but are too small to be useful.


I have a Seagate 7200.11 1.5TB, and just ordered two more from NewEgg. Seagate has made some progress on the issue:

http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/news....

The main reason I went with the 7200.11 is size. I wanted to get the most storage in my case possible. I have had great service with Seagate over the last few decades, all the way back to massive 40MB (megabyte) drives. But I can say that about all of my drives, except some problems with just a few Maxtor's.

I will be getting something quicker for my system drive, maybe WD Caviar Black 1Tb or the 7200.12, but I'm trying to wait for the 7200.12 2TB. I'm currently running Seagate 320GB x 2, WD 500GB x 2, and the 7200.11 1.5TB, with 2 80mm case fans to cool them all.

June 6, 2009 8:45:00 PM

One thing I do when I'm trying to decide what to buy is look at the customer ratings on places like newegg; this is only good if a bunch have been sold, and of limited use anyway, but if it's got a 5-star rating and 500 people commented, I think it's probably a reliable product. :D 

Generally, the Western Digitals have better consumer ratings on newegg than the Seagates. For that reason, all else being equal, I tend toward WD. But then, I got stuck on WD when the Raptors came out, so I'm biased that way.

I have 2 640GB Black Caviars in Raid 0, works great!

;) 
June 19, 2009 8:05:39 AM

i have always bought WD in the past but i saw a good deal on the seagate 7200.12 1TB (thought the 500gb per platter would make it better) and i was going to get it, till i found this article ( http://techreport.com/articles.x/16472 ) basically the black out-performed the 7200 in almost all catergories and was rather poor in the benchmark tests for game level load times. so i got the black 1TB for $100 at the time of this post, also if you look at the combo deals there is one that has software a hard drive back up/ migration program called 'Acronis True Image Home 2009' and it comes out to be $100 still so i figured i might as well get it.
July 1, 2009 6:47:41 AM

I'm also trying to decide on one of these or another brand and having trouble picking one.

Leaning towards a 7200.12 Seagate but not sure to go with the
16mb cache 500gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

or the 32mb cache 1tb.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Some reviews for the Seagate 1tb show very high random access times, and I am not sure what this really means.
What does this affect in real world computing??

The WD reviews show it runs hot and is louder, while the the Seagate has the random access slow times.
July 2, 2009 2:54:50 AM

I'm looking at these two drives as well, and did read the article that was posted above that gave the edge to the WD Black. However I saw a more recent article that gave the edge, pretty convincingly to the 7200.12. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/739/10

I'd say its somewhat of a toss up but I'm going to pull the trigger on the Seagate. My 150GB Raptor bit the dust today, so this will be a replacement. Possibly 2 of these in Raid-0.
July 2, 2009 3:00:39 AM

is the 500GB Seagate 7200.12 a single 500GB platter? If so I think that's the way to go for my Raid -0 config. There's also a $10 coupon code for newegg that gets the drive for $49 shipped. EMCLTNS33
August 15, 2009 9:54:38 PM

the Seagate 7200.12 1TB has various firmware versions around. The latest? CC44 has 18.5ms access time -that really sucks. Not sure why they downgraded access time. Anyway I sent them back to my supplier who didn't believe me until they tested them, swapped them out for Blacks - avoid 7200.12 big time... Mike
August 15, 2009 11:39:21 PM

Currently ZZF has the 1TB black for 69$ after rebate and cashback, I prefer WD for their higher IO but they do run a bit warm.
August 17, 2009 3:58:14 AM

If u need perfomance = WD. If u need reliablilty = Seagate. Why not try hitachi?
September 16, 2009 11:45:41 PM

I would be a little cautious with using RAID 0 with the WD Black caviar though. I don't know about Seagate but i've read somewhere that using the normal Black caviar in RAID 0 config is less stable or something. SOmething to do with there being a RAID edition WD which is more suited for RAID. Its slightly higher price. Anyone can confirm this?

EDIT: FOund the link
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328784,00.asp
September 17, 2009 5:23:00 AM

I think those guys need to retest or something... my RAID 0 config and tests killed single drive performance... i was also using an intel on board controller...
a b G Storage
September 17, 2009 6:19:47 AM

Caviar blacks are fine in RAID - the drive itself can't tell if it is in a RAID config or not. The RE drives are a bit more reliable, to somewhat offset the reliability hit incurred by running a system with RAID 0, but the Caviar blacks will do just fine.
September 18, 2009 2:30:26 AM

How significant is the reliability hit?
a b G Storage
September 19, 2009 7:16:46 PM

One measure of hard drive reliability is mean time before failure (mtbf). Unfortunately, that is based on some sort of statistical calculations that I have no freakin' clue about. :( 

Case in point: the WD 1 TB RE3 drive has a 1,200,000 hour mean time before failure (mtbf). That's about 135 years of continuous operation. I am willing to bet that WD did not design it in the 1870's, build ten of them, run them continuously, have five fail by this year, and so declare a 1.2 million hour mtbf.

I think the WD Black's have around a 300,000 hour mtbf.
December 17, 2009 11:33:22 PM

i just ordered a new 1 TIb seagate 7200.12 because it is alot cold and silent than caviar black. now i have 750 gigs 7200.11, and its working just fine for over an year or something. my question is that now i have the chance, should i make an upgrade to the firmaware to the 7200.11 ? and another question should i put my OS on the new HDD?
December 19, 2009 12:55:22 AM

Just to add my two cents. I have 4 1TB Seagate 7200.12s, 2 of which have failed in the first 3 months of ownership. I beg you to not give them any of your hard earned money. I have owned 10 or so WD drives over the last 12 years, 0 failures, 0 problems. The last time I will try Seagate.
December 19, 2009 12:58:54 AM

you couldnt say that 2 days ago :( . i already ordered mine and its on the road so i cant cancel the order.
a b G Storage
December 19, 2009 7:29:15 AM

ericball said:
Just to add my two cents. I have 4 1TB Seagate 7200.12s, 2 of which have failed in the first 3 months of ownership. I beg you to not give them any of your hard earned money. I have owned 10 or so WD drives over the last 12 years, 0 failures, 0 problems. The last time I will try Seagate.

Zero failures with WD for the past 12 years? Really?

That's actually pretty surprising - they had a MAJOR reliability problem several years back. Recently, they've been a lot better (and there was a while when I would recommend them over pretty much anyone else). I have 3 WD drives (and a Seagate) in my computer, and all have been flawless. That having been said, Seagate's 7200.12 series is pretty darn good - I have a Barracuda XT (same generation, though it has the same guts as the Constellation series of enterprise drives rather than the 7200.12, so it isn't quite the same drive), and a friend has a pair of 7200.12s, and they've been flawless. I've been looking at the 7200.12 a lot too, and they seem to have basically fixed the reliability problems (and yes, there will always be some bad drives, but I haven't seen evidence of a reliability issue on the scale of the 7200.11 disaster, especially moose*).

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Seagate will be able to pull off another drive as reliable as the Galaxy (7200.10), which was a great drive. I have a friend who has 6 (yes 6 - 4 500GB and 2 750GB) Galaxies running in his computer, and all are still flawless 3 years after he got them.


* Moose was the internal name Seagate had for the original 7200RPM 250GB per platter design, which was the early 7200.11 series, and was incredibly unreliable. It was followed by Brinks, which had ~333GB per platter, and was slightly better (though still horrible).
December 25, 2009 5:27:52 AM

Anyhow in recent memory I've had a 20GB, 4x120GB(2 sata, 2 ide), 2x320GB, 2x750GB, and 7x1TB (order for friends and the like, none mine unfortunately, 5 are in 1 array! :p ), 0 failures. I also have had misc. drives ranging between 800MB and 10GB that worked before I ditched em. Maybe I skipped the unreliable batch? Who knows.

My third drive just started reporting errors in my 1+0 array today... A call to Seagate just to inform me that Seagate does not support RAID arrays, kind of horsesh*t. Anyhow, I'm just going to continue to RMA until I'm frustrated enough to buy something else or put my 2x750 WDs that I replaced. Good luck with your 7200.12s, I hope they turn out better than mine.
December 25, 2009 1:42:47 PM

I have a Seagate ST3750528AS which is the Barracuda 750 w/32 mb cache. It came standard in my computer that I picked up on Dec. 20th. I was rather surprised to find such high cache HDD on a stock machine (especially a Gateway)
as I was ready to plunk down $99 for a WD Caviar Black 100TB 32mb but
I don't really need to now since I learned the spec on my stock ST is adequate.
The only downside I'm having is the Hard Disk only reaches a 5.9 mark on the performance index. I've read where Vista wouldn't go over 5.9 on HDD but that was supposed to be resolved in Win 7?
Forgive me, but I'm a new convert....fresh off the XP trail as I skipped Vista altogether.
I'm really digging the new OS but there are some new things in it I'm not quite familiar with
Thanks for any suggestions
December 25, 2009 2:18:07 PM

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Windows 7 goes up to 7.9. My 4 hard drives in Raid 1+0 report a 6.2 rating. I'm not sure if your single drive will be capable of getting above 5.9, but I don't have a similar drive to check. Hope that helps.

P.S. Windows 7 is awesome after suffering through Vista for two or so years.
February 5, 2010 11:00:58 PM

It sounds like you just need to go with your gut, and it also sounds like you've already got it figured out. Hint: When inDoubt, bet on black.
June 7, 2010 4:22:01 AM

I ordered a 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda hard drive from Tiger Direct. The first one and the 2 replacements they sent all failed the Sea Tools LDS test as well as the Long Generic test. Almost 2 months and I still don't have a drive that works. :non: 
June 11, 2010 5:24:18 PM

I've ordered 4 Seagate 7200.12 750gb from TigerDirect
3 of them failled the long test provided by seagate.

Let's hear the problem here because Seagate refuse to acknowledge the problem and refused to let me talk to their programist.
(I'm a programist myself)

The test per say didn't fail. The test got interrupted by memory corruption.
The memory was tested with MemTest 386, the program run in DOS, loading from a Linux Boot disc provided by Seagate.

I've tried the test on 3 different machine.
1 Intel Dh55HC motherboard (Satat II)
1 HP Dc7100 Motherboard (Sata I)
1 HP Dc7600 Motherboard (Sata I)

When the drive succeed to complete the test, it DOES pass the test. but hear me out, as this can be a sign of a much worse problem then just physical problem

---it seem---
The test program query the drive to fill his buffer and send back the information. at some point (randomly) the buffer return twice the amount of Data the drive buffer can hold. Where this data is coming from ? The Test program doesn't have a secured data lenght pointer, and so, the memory overload and the program crash, dumping HEX code on the screen.

This bug occur as followed:
drive 1: 7 fail test over 10
drive 2: 3 fail test over 10
drive 3: 5 fail test over 10
drive 4: 1 fail test over 10

Seagate COULD fix the problem by fixing the memory pointer and making it FIXED Sized secure, but that would only prevent the test program to crash, leading to a false sense of security. the random occurance of the "double" buffer size would still occur.

In other word, Seagate WILL probably FIX the crashing issue of the test program, but since they won't let us know what WAS wrong with the buffer, I would not trust that drive.

Unless seagate make a general public annoncment of what was WRONG with the drive (probably another firmware issue)
I would never trust seagate again.

They never acknoledge in public the problem on the 7200.11, that make me very sceptic about the compagny honesty.


Anonymous
a b G Storage
July 23, 2010 10:19:17 PM

Marcus52 said:
One thing I do when I'm trying to decide what to buy is look at the customer ratings on places like newegg; this is only good if a bunch have been sold, and of limited use anyway, but if it's got a 5-star rating and 500 people commented, I think it's probably a reliable product. :D 

Generally, the Western Digitals have better consumer ratings on newegg than the Seagates. For that reason, all else being equal, I tend toward WD. But then, I got stuck on WD when the Raptors came out, so I'm biased that way.

I have 2 640GB Black Caviars in Raid 0, works great!

;) 



Hello Marcus, I am thinking of buying two 640GB Black Caviars and running in RAID 0 as you have. I have talked to people in other Tech places on the net and most tell me that if I am going to run RAID at all I should get the new Black Caviar RE type hard drive. They say that regular SATA drives drop out of RAID frequently and errors abound when running them. I am running Windows XP Home, My Chip and Motherboard are the AMD AthlonXP3200 and the Socket A, ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe. It is capable of RAID 0 and 1. I am not sure if RAID 5 is availible on the disk of drivers. Someone suggested I run that for some reason that I do not remember. Anyway, Since you are running the 640GB Black I wanted to ask you if you have run into any problems thus far. I am a little worried about running RAID at all since I have never used it before. I already puchased two Caviar Green 500GB hard drives, but now I find out that the Green's are not very good at all in RAID since they basically run at 5200 nearly all the time. So I am thinkning of getting the 640GB Black as you are running.

hafengr
Pittsburgh, PA
December 15, 2010 12:43:57 AM

I have both the WD Caviar Black 1TB and the Seagate 7200.12 1TB drives in the Mac Pro system. WD Caviar is the boot drive and the 7200.12 is the storage. The Seagate is much much more quieter the the Caviar and I have not had problems with either.

I recently needed to add more drives and decided on some reviews to get anoter WD Caviar Black. The first one made a much more obnoxious chunky noise than the one I have as boot drive. I could not get it to format and had to return it to the store. I installed the second WD Caviar Black drive after getting it replaced, it too made more noise than my WD Caviar Black boot drive however it did format and did a backup for 2 days. After 2 days the SMART Status said the drive was failing and it would basically lock up disk utility.

I once again returned it and refused to buy another WD Caviar black, I don't like thier noisey operation and failure rate. I then purchased another Seagate 7200.12 and installed flawlessly with operation so quiet you can't even hear the backup operation between the 2 Seagate drives.

If my primary boot drive ever crashes i am definately going to nother Seagate.
March 4, 2011 3:12:30 AM

Ok. Here's my thoughts on WD Caviar Black versus Seagate Barracuda 7200.12. I have a lot of experience with drives and RAID 1 configuration for small business.

Both brands have 5 year warranties. However, the WD Caviar Black is approved for 24/7 use. If you read the Seagate warranty, the standard Barracuda drive warranty does not cover commercial use (translation not for any business use). In addition, the Seagate Drive Selection Guide indicates Barracuda drives are only rated for "on as needed, 8x5" usage. That's 168 hours per week of rated usage for WD Caviar Black versus 40 rated hours per week for Seagate Barracuda. If you need 24/7 usage with Seagate, you must buy a much more expensive (and difficult to find) Seagate Barracuda ES drive or Seagate Constellation drive.

I have had a regular Seagate Barracuda (7200.12) fail in less than 30 days. SMART indicated imminent failure after about 20 days of usage.

I have had 2 WD Caviar Black drives. No problems. I have had an OEM WD Caviar blue drive with 12-month warranty, fail after 13 months. I would never own any WD drive other than a Caviar Black.

The WD Caviar Black is a more expensive drive compared to a Seagate Barracuda for the same capacity. If you can get a retail WD Caviar Black for close to the same price as a Seagate Barracuda of same capacity, go with the WD Caviar Black.
April 14, 2011 11:46:16 PM

HeyEverybody, after reading the entire list of posts I think I have a unique quandry. I orderd a bare bone set from TigerDirect and the original order was for a WD Caviar Black 500GB SATA HD. Well, when i got my stuff everyting was there except the WD HD. They said it was back ordered. When I finally got my shipment it was a 500GB Seagate Barracuda 1200.12 16mb HD. Did I get screwed or what? I would respect your opinions.

Tracy
May 12, 2011 2:41:56 PM

I had my first computer 12 years ago and have used around 10 different computers since, both personal and work. The only problem I had with a hard drive was with a Seagate Barracuda, it occasionally failed and refused to work until I applied some pressure on the power connector. Now it seems to me that the failure rate of HDDs today is much higher than that of those manufactured earlier, someone with more experiences please confirm. Also, I noticed there is a change in the way Seagate HDDs' country of origin are labeled, it now reads "Product of China" instead of "Made in China". However, on the nylon bag there is a sticker that reads "Content made in China" (or similar to that).

After reading all of your comments I feel a bit nervous as I am building a new system for personal use and already bought a new Seagate 7200.12 but yet to get all the components to test it.
!