Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which harddrive is the better choice?

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 9, 2010 12:25:27 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

So which one would be the better choice?
I know they're not the same size but i'm mainly looking for reliability, speed and noise.

More about : harddrive choice

April 9, 2010 12:38:11 PM

both of the them are quite cool & give reliable products.. but i personally go with Seagate only..
a b G Storage
April 9, 2010 1:11:50 PM

manojgj said:
both of the them are quite cool & give reliable products.. but i personally go with Seagate only..

& I go with WD :p 
I agree that both are probably good choices, and I'm not all that partisan.
Here are the advantages that each has, as I see it;

Seagate: larger capacity for not much more money, a bit faster sequential reads

WD: Cheaper (if you don't need the capacity; more expensive per GB), longer warranty, better reviews, lower power usage, lower access time

My choice? Based on the stats (not my preference), WD. Why? Well, I like high rated drives, even though all fail eventually. But more, if you look at a comparison of the benchmarks in the tomshardware charts area (which I will try to link to), you will see that the caviar scores lower power, lower power per operation, lower access times, and higher scores in most benchmarks because of these lower access times. The only place that the barracuda beats it is in raw read speed, because of its larger size. The only way that I would recommend the Seagate is if you really need the extra 500GB.
(not sure if either of these links will work, or if the second one will go where I want it to. I'm not quite master of the forum magic here yet)

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-har...[2362]=on&prod[2365]=on


2009 3.5” Desktop Hard Drive Charts

edit: well, the links almost worked. Click on the first one, select the two drives and click the compare button on the bottom.
Related resources
April 10, 2010 10:27:51 AM

ok thank you.
April 10, 2010 10:52:17 AM

Western Digital is the much much better choice!

Avoid the error prone Seagate!
April 10, 2010 11:08:47 AM

"elel"
My choice? Based on the stats (not my preference)....

i mentioned that "I prefer seagate " by statics that i have seen & heard from mother board & HDD techs & service engineers in field who faces lot of issues every day, not only from experience of single or small team of technician from unknown country who tested few products with their rig in lab.

we have seen lot of HDD failure's with WD HDD , but seagate work s fine years
also there's no service center for WD in our place.. WD may not suitable for our environment & temperature difference.

you have also consider that the electronic items are not produced at the same quality & features around the world..
corporate learned very much about making money rather giving best quality..
they use the governments inability to maintain the product quality (especially in the field electronics & IT ..bcz they are not yet upgraded their view & knowledge in modern technologies,

many countries wont care about the quality of products they are getting (their only motto is to utilize the poor people as much they can for their own wealth not for country..

an branded laptop or mobile phone of same model & technical specification will shows lot of differs in features & quality of software even the hardware quality also....
April 10, 2010 12:04:40 PM

WD has a lot of failure?

Don't lie with your imaginary experience!

WD never had serious problem in firmware and clicking noise as Seagate 7200.11 and 7200.12.

Furthermore, Seagate did't admit the firmware problem on their 7200.11 to avoid cost for replacing drives until many bad drives reported!
This is very very bad and the reason why I will never consider Seagate anymore.

Now I go for either WD Black or Samsung Spinpoint F3!
April 10, 2010 12:12:16 PM

i have also told the reason for failure..

temperature & other circumstances & quality of drives is different in countries..
WD may give good performance & life with western & European countries.. but may not suite for temperature and environment in Asian & African countries which high temperature & variety of climate..
April 10, 2010 12:15:48 PM

At least WD never deny any failure in drives (if there were) as Seagate.

It's about the reputation!
a b G Storage
April 10, 2010 12:34:57 PM

manojgj said:
i have also told the reason for failure..

temperature & other circumstances & quality of drives is different in countries..
WD may give good performance & life with western & European countries.. but may not suite for temperature and environment in Asian & African countries which high temperature & variety of climate..

Thanks, I never knew that. I wasn't trying to put you down, just trying to keep this from getting into a pure brand debate, which I guess I failed at. Do you know any of the reasons that WD is climate sensitive?
April 10, 2010 1:00:12 PM

All the HDDs are temperature sensitive.

HDDs work best at about 30C and Seagate runs cooler than WD Black. Hence, Seagate and WD Black perform better under hotter and cooler ambient respectively.

BTW, my WD Black 1TB and Seagate 500GB run at 25C and 30C respectively now.
a c 115 G Storage
April 10, 2010 7:37:42 PM

Check out the performance charts and pick whatever 500 GB per platter drive performs best under your usage patterns. The 2 TB WD Black and XT from Seagate are good choice but at smaller capacities, you are limited to the Seagate 7200.12 or the Spinpoint F3. The 7200.12 excels in gaming, multimedia and pictures whereas the F3 wins at music and movie maker. See the comparisons here (copy past link in manually, link won't work in forum):

(http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-har...[2371]=on&prod[2770]=on)

Look at the tests that reflect your usage and choose accordingly.
a c 115 G Storage
April 10, 2010 8:31:41 PM

andy5174 said:
WD has a lot of failure?

Don't lie with your imaginary experience!


http://www.storagereview.com/php/survey/survey_result_t...

If you want to get an overall idea outside of one's own anectdotal experience, pop over to www.storagereview.com and check out the reliability database. You'll note for example that the WD 1500 Raptor linked above has a 25% failure rate which puts it at the 12th percentile in the rankings.

All manufacturers have had their share of primo drives as well as bombers. For example the WD RE2 500 GB (bomb) did better than only 4% of all drives in the survey. The Raptor 740 GD (primo) did better than 94%.

Seagate has the distinction in having both the best and one of the worse drives in the survey. The 15k.3 scored better than 100% of drives in the survey but the 15k.4 was better than just 1%

A percentile score of 70 means according to filtered and analyzed results from readers, the given drive was more reliable than 70% of the other drives reviewed by StorageReview.com.

Seagate's average percentile ranking for all drives in the storagereview.com reliability survey is 61.16 %.

WD's is 51.71 %

Samsung's is 53.42 %

One thing I look for, especially in NAS boxes as an indicator of reliability is surface temps .... all things being equal, rotating elements that run at a lower temperature will suffer less wear and tear on their bearings.
April 10, 2010 8:53:47 PM

thank you for the info.
I've been looking at warranty aswell and found out that WD has global warranty, that means i can buy it in the US and bring it to my country and still RMA here.
Haven't found anything about seagate and samsung, if anyone knows.
April 10, 2010 9:17:15 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
http://www.storagereview.com/php/survey/survey_result_t...

If you want to get an overall idea outside of one's own anectdotal experience, pop over to www.storagereview.com and check out the reliability database. You'll note for example that the WD 1500 Raptor linked above has a 25% failure rate which puts it at the 12th percentile in the rankings.

All manufacturers have had their share of primo drives as well as bombers. For example the WD RE2 500 GB (bomb) did better than only 4% of all drives in the survey. The Raptor 740 GD (primo) did better than 94%.

Seagate has the distinction in having both the best and one of the worse drives in the survey. The 15k.3 scored better than 100% of drives in the survey but the 15k.4 was better than just 1%

A percentile score of 70 means according to filtered and analyzed results from readers, the given drive was more reliable than 70% of the other drives reviewed by StorageReview.com.

Seagate's average percentile ranking for all drives in the storagereview.com reliability survey is 61.16 %.

WD's is 51.71 %

Samsung's is 53.42 %

One thing I look for, especially in NAS boxes as an indicator of reliability is surface temps .... all things being equal, rotating elements that run at a lower temperature will suffer less wear and tear on their bearings.

Too bad there are minimal results for Seagate for you to get sufficient information on failure rate and the latest WD
drives shown in that review was released at least two years ago which is extremely old and so it is a worthless review.
In addition, merely one failure reported for the WD Caviar Black released in 2008.

It is a common knowledge that Seagate is not superior anymore and their drives are actually trash since 7200.11.
WD has much better reputation and WD Caviar Black is much more reliable than 7200.12 and with much longer warranty.

In addition, WD Black is actually better than Samsung F3 and Seagate 7200.12 as a boot drive due to its faster access time.
Furthermore, the real life boot/load time differences are also significant!!!

FYI, the latest WD Black also comes with 500GB Platter as well which is not well known due to HDDs getting replaced by SSDs.
April 10, 2010 9:31:49 PM

AND THE MOST MOST IMPORTANT THING TO NOTICE IS:

WD never deny any failure in drives (if there were) as Seagate.

It's about the reputation!

Segate has the worst reputation since 7200.11

April 10, 2010 9:38:40 PM

Why go with WD Black?

Quote:
i) WD has much better reputation than Seagate nowadays
ii) The warranty period of WD Black is 5 years which is 2 years longer than Seagate
iii) WD Blacks are more reliable so you are less likely to lose data

a b G Storage
April 10, 2010 11:47:07 PM

andy5174 said:
Why go with WD Black?

Quote:
i) WD has much better reputation than Seagate nowadays
ii) The warranty period of WD Black is 5 years which is 2 years longer than Seagate
iii) WD Blacks are more reliable so you are less likely to lose data

I guess we know where you work! :lol: 
April 10, 2010 11:55:14 PM

LOL.

Someone thought that I work for nVidia when I post some information about GTX480 before its release.

In fact, I work for both nVidia and WD. :p 
a b G Storage
April 11, 2010 12:00:30 AM

Let me guess... cartoonist?

And I see mozila is also on the list!
April 11, 2010 8:36:26 PM

well went with WD as it has good access times, and a 5 year GLOBAL warranty.
I don't know but if a company trusts their harddrives enough to put a 5 year warranty on them the it must mean something.
Seagate and Samsung only give a 3 year warranty.
a b G Storage
April 11, 2010 9:10:59 PM

Thank you for posting your decision. We were just having a discussion in the forum related section in which it was mentioned that many times google searches about a problem come up with a thread here in which the Original Poster never said whether what was suggested worked, so no one learns anything.
!