Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Suggestions for HDD...Seagate or WD?

Last response: in Storage
Share
September 28, 2009 2:03:53 AM

I want to purchase 500 GB HDD SATA II.

I m looking for Seagate or Western Digital.

read somewhere that Seagate 7200.11 had firmware problems.

should i go with Seagate 7200.12 500 GB [16MB]

or Western Digital Caviar Green 500 GB [32MB]

what role will the cache buffer play in performance. which one is faster of the above two and which one is realiable?

Please suggest between these models...


Barracuda® 7200.12 Desktop Hard Drives

Model ST3500410AS SATA 3.0Gb/s 500 GB [16M]



WD Caviar Green

WD5000AACS [16M]
WD5000AADS [32M]


or any other recommendation?
a b G Storage
September 28, 2009 7:34:19 AM

Without commenting on the cache, I'd say go for the Caviar. I've always stuck WD because of my good experiences with them, reliability wise.
m
0
l
a c 109 G Storage
September 28, 2009 8:16:14 AM

I like WD as well. Go for the Green if its a backup drive or look for the Black for OS and Apps. The Black is faster and the Green of course tries to save power as much as it can. I would go for the 640gig or 1tb Black for OS they have slightly more efficient platter designs ( 2x 320 or 3x333 ) and that increases performance over the 500gig too.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 28, 2009 2:44:26 PM

actually, have you looked up the Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB, single platter for fast transfer speeds
m
0
l
September 28, 2009 3:46:01 PM

Samsung is not available in my area. even WD drives are hard to get. Vendors here sell only SGT.

Whats the performance difference between 7200.11 with 32M and 7200.12 with 16MB


I read somewhere that performance wise SGT is best because of single platter design in new generation. but WD drives are more reliable. It is just cos of FW issues SGT had with 7200.11 gen drives?

how much performance difference will be observed between 32M and 16M bufffers for 500GB drives. Is 16M cache buffer enough for a 500GBier?

m
0
l
!