Need some advice!

[fueledbyramen123]

So I have purchased two Seagate HDD's in the last year and I'm not happy with either. The first was the 7200.10 (250GB - 32MB Cache) and more recently I bought the ES.2 (250GB - 32MB Cache) and they are both slow when accessing programs/files and surprisingly loud.

I'm willing to give Seagate another try if you guys think the 7200.11 is a good buy. I would have bought the 7200.11 from the get go but they were a good deal more expensive several months ago so I went with the .10 instead.

I'm debating between a Seagate or WD. I keep hearing great things about WD's SE16 series and the newer Black series.

Here's the Seagate I'm looking at:
Link

and a couple WD drives:
Link
Link

From what I'm understanding now from reading a bit more, it seems that Seagate drives are super fast while transfering files but WD has better access times while using programs, opening folders, etc. Is this a fairly accurate statement? I can say for sure that when I transfer all of my files from one Seagate drive to another that it really is fast...but overall performance is lacking.

So, any thoughts? Oh, these are all SATA 3G/s by the way. In case someone was about to ask. I just don't want to regret another hard drive purchase and I'm tired of trying new ones and having to re-do my PC everytime only to be disappointed.

Thanks in advance!

 

[shortstuff_mt]

The WD6400AAKS is about the best drive you can buy for the price. The 640GB drives are faster due to higher data density. It also doesn't really cost any more than the drives you linked to.

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD6400AAKS 640GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136218 $74.99

 

[aevm]

+1

The WD7500AAKS is very good too. I have two of those and they work very well and they're quiet. However, the WD6400AAKS is newer and faster.

 

[fueledbyramen123]

Any big difference between the 500 and 640 GB SE16's? I mean, besides the 140GB of space?

My instinct tells me that a smaller drive should perform a little faster but I admit I don't know as much about HDD's as other PC parts, so I'm probably wrong. Plus I really don't need anything that big and I wouldn't mind saving that 10 bucks between the 500 and 640.

Also, I'm guessing that the cache doesn't mean much anymore, since most people still seem to prefer the SE16's which have 16MB of cache as opposed to the Seagate 7200's which have 32MB cache.

Thanks so far for the input!

 

[aevm]

Yeah, there's a big difference in speed. The 500GB gets about 70 MB/s average read/write rate. The 640GB version gets about 90. That's because the 640GB version has fewer platters with higher density.

True, the cache doesn't do much. For example WD's 640GB/16MB disk is about 1% faster in average read/write benchmarks than Seagate's similar model with 32MB of cache. Still, Seagate is worth considering too IMO because it has longer warranties.

 

[fueledbyramen123]

Ok...so as of right now...it seems that the 640GB SE16 is the way to go.

Another question...the Caviar Black series is newer than the SE16's right? Is a Black worth considering or are the SE16's still the way to go?

Man, I really wish I had gone with my guy last year and bought a WD. I wanted to give Seagate a try (twice for some reason) but if I would have known, I wouldn't have bothered. Unless of course I just got two lemons...which would be something.

 

[aevm]

Yes the Black series is newer. It does have some improvements.

WD6400AAKS: 90 MB/s, $75
WD6401AALS: 104 MB/s, $85 (prices at Newegg)

If you do a lot of video work, or other things involving a few huge files, where the average read/write rate is essential, the "Black" is well worth the extra $10. If not, the old drive is just as good IMO.