Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CAn't choose: Samsung spinpoint F3 or WD black 500gb??

Last response: in Storage
Share
October 16, 2009 6:20:42 PM

hello
i wanna asl you uys something:
i wanna upgrade my current HDD, a maxtor 160gb PATA(very old), for windows seven :bounce:  (finally)

but is just can't choose between following two:

Samsung spinpoint F3 500gb

or

Western digital caviar Black 500gb


the WD has 32 mb cache, but has been around for some time, so i was thinking maybe the new Samsung performs better?? because of 500mb/ platter??
and i heard that the WD is quite noisy., so

tell me what you choice would be and why, plz

(or should i go for raid 0, but I fear that would make my system too instable???)
October 16, 2009 10:33:58 PM

Platter size makes more of a difference than cache, I would also consider the seagate 7200.12 500gb. It's similar to the f3.
a b G Storage
October 16, 2009 11:58:50 PM

Since you're considering the Samsung SpinPoint F3 500 GB drive, I presume that your Mobo is SATA capable, and if so I'd recommend the WD 640 GB Black. Pls check your MOBO specs and make sure before you buy. It's a single platter drive with 32 MB cache and is the same price as the WD 500 GB that you're considering, but with 140 GB more storage space. The 640 GB drive is also very highly rated as well.

More info and reviews are here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Good luck....
Related resources
October 16, 2009 11:59:10 PM

Why not the WD 640GB?
October 16, 2009 11:59:56 PM

oops looks like mikey got it in b4 i clicked post lol
October 18, 2009 1:52:04 AM

Wait, the WD 640 GB Caviar black is a single platter? I thought it was two 320 GB platters? The spinpoint F3 is a single 500 GB platter, though.
October 18, 2009 4:04:26 AM

Well, if the post by Jimmy at Newegg is correct, then the bad throughput of the "WD 640 GB Caviar black" (only 118MB/s) clearly speaks against it, and clearly indicates a two-platter design.

Samsung's F3 and Seagate's 7200.12 have very similar figures, I would choose the Seagate just because it's been on the market since longer.

Another contender would be Hitachi's 7k1000b. Lower throughput but more agile arm.
a b G Storage
October 18, 2009 2:36:34 PM

The 640 Black by Western Digital is a fast drive. Only 118 MB/s throughput, what is that all about? I would like to see a drive that performs any better, especially for the money. Some say they are a little noisy, but with todays GPUS, CPU's and case fans, any noise a drive may make is a ridiculous thing to complain about. The 640 black has been a long standing enthusiast choice for speed, reliability, and price.
Seagate drives, they are decent, but I would be hesitant to recommend from personal experiences over the years. Have not been overly happy with them.
Stay away from Samsung and Hitachi. They are a very small segment of the market for a reason.
Just because some individual complains or leaves a negative comment in the Newegg reviews, that certainly does not mean it is accurate. Read the reviews at Newegg with a grain of salt. 99% of the issues written there are caused by what is in between the chair and the keyboard, and not the hardware its self.
a b G Storage
October 18, 2009 4:30:15 PM

If you're going to consider a RAID array. I would highly recommend getting two of the WD RE series drives for your array. They do cost more and usually have less cache.

Due to the different methods of error correction between regular desktop and RE drives, a problem can occur that can cause a drive to drop from the array. In a RAID environment, the RAID controller has a timeout factor for error correction, whereas a regular desktop drive has a timeout factor as well but it is longer than the RAID timeout factor, and if the RAID timeout factor is exceeded, a drive can drop out of the array.

If you're just going to use a single drive, the 640 GB Black would be a great start, if RAID however, then get two of the RE3 or RE4 certified drives. WD may not provide support for a drive used in a RAID array that is not RE certified.

FWIW...I have two 37 GB Raptor drives that I've been using in a RAID 0 for over 4 years and I've never had a drive drop out of the array, but my system isn't on 24/7 or used every single day of the week, either.

There's plenty of RAID information available out there...google it.
October 21, 2009 6:48:16 PM

I'm presently running XP on a three year old W.D. Blue, 500GB, 16MB Cache. I recently installed a Seagate, FreeAgent | Xtreme, 500GB, eSata, for backup and extra storage. When I aquire Windows 7 I will be installing it on a new hard drive. I would like to install it on a new SSD, but I'm afraid I will not be able to afford one for a year or two.

I really do not need a lot more storage space, so 500GB should suffice. I'm strongly for a single platter hard drive, the less stuff to wear out the better. I just went to W.D.'s site to see if their 640GB Black is a dual platter design and I could not find any information. I also went to Tom's '2009 3.5" Desktop Hard Drive Charts' for more info:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-har...

According to the charts the hottest 500GB hard drive going is the Spinpoint F3. Another contender would also be the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 750GB, 32MB Cache, but is this hard drive also a dual platter? Unfortunatly the charts do not include the 500GB or 640GB W.D. Black's...why's that?

The F3 has been on the market for two months and has 16MB Cache and the 500GB Black has been on the market for a year and has 32MB Cache. Which one might be the best for gaming?
November 9, 2009 5:20:58 AM

If you click on the 'Drive Specification Sheet' link here:

http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/products.asp?...

it shows that the heads/disk for WD's line-up is:

2 TB - 8/4
1TB - 6/3
750GB - 5/3
640GB - 4/2
500GB - 4/2

I've read in a couple places that the 640 is faster than the 750 and the 500. Does anyone know of any actual tests, or benchmarks showing this?

Thanks!
!