Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Western Digital 640gb or Seagate 640gb

Last response: in Systems
Share
January 1, 2009 11:24:04 PM

Should I get the Western Digital Caviar 640gb 16mb cache or the Seagate 640gb 32mb cache, keeping in mind gaming will be the main use for the PC. Did any one have to make this discison?

If any one can find any benchmarks with these two HD's please tell me.
January 1, 2009 11:32:02 PM

If they are both the same price, get the one with the more cache. Also if they are within $5 of each other still get the 32mb model. I don't know how it would affect gaming performance but overall loading times may be a SMALL bit faster depending on how much data you have and how fragmented it is.
January 1, 2009 11:39:39 PM

Seagate 7200.11 drives seem to be having quite a few problems .

Sometimes they are just slow and sometimes they are dead like the one they sent me .

I'd buy the WD or the 32 mb cache WD black series
Related resources
January 1, 2009 11:55:21 PM

If i go for the Black here(New Zealand) i might as well go for a 750gb(Around same price), the Blue is a lot cheaper then the black here so really the only option to get from Western Digital is the blue version.

Could you please read here http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/storage/9825-wd-se... and tell me which one would suit me better. I dont know that much about hard drives and how to interprete the outcomes and results to my gaming needs.
January 2, 2009 12:12:56 AM

I just did a build with two WD 640 blacks and got an HD Tune of ~100MB/sec. avg. read times.

Go with the WD, the Seagate 7200.11s have problems, as outlander_04 said.
January 2, 2009 12:36:02 AM

where are your sources, that they have problems? If they didnt have any problems would you still go with the WD? Isnt the 32mb Cache a major advantage?

Zorg i cant get a black-to expansive
January 2, 2009 1:13:31 AM

Get the WD6400AAKS 640GB, it has an avg. read speed of ~91.5MB/sec.

Customer Reviews Of Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST3750330AS 750GB

I couldn't find the 640 on their site.

Read the 3, 2 and 1 egg reviews. I know that Newegg isn't the place to go for reviews, but on a hard drive I suspect most are accurate.

If you really want the 7200.11 go for it, I just think they are more prone to failure. I'm certainly not saying that the WDs don't fail. Compare the reviews of the 6400AAKS.
January 2, 2009 1:44:49 AM

Good link Zorg

If you click on the reviews for the last 2 weeks an astonishing 44% of people who bought that seagate drive was very poor

and 61 % thought it was poor or worse .

Im still waiting 6 weeks later for a replacement for my 500 gig so I think they know they have a huge problem ... or its costing too much to honor the warranties.

Bingy have a look at pricespy.co.nz .
The WD black is more expensive so if you cant afford it the blue is only a tiny drop in performance
January 2, 2009 3:01:06 AM

yea pricespy is were i always look for the lowest prices. BUT most of the lowest prices of a iteam are from dodgy shops, poor service and some take weeks and weeks ages to get replacements. Good stores have higher prices and they some times just give you the replacement and they just send the faulty one away, so you dont have to wait. So its around $0-10 more from the lowest possible price.

Is some thing wrong with new egg? Havent be able to search for stuff for over 24 hours now.Cant connect to their site now. Can only get to the homepage then nothing else works. Now cant even get there.
January 2, 2009 3:17:31 AM

Works fine for me from the US east coast.
January 2, 2009 5:04:01 AM

The only reason why the Seagate 7200.11 is a possibility is that has 32mb cache. Other wise if it had 16mbs i would definently get the WD.

I can go to the newegg hompage and then when i click any thing it doesnt load, it shows it as loading the next page but nothing comes.
January 2, 2009 6:06:31 AM

Newegg works perfectly for me.

Like I said, if you want the 7200.11 then go for it. I can only inform you, you are the one that has to decide. ~91.5 MB/sec is very respectable.
January 2, 2009 7:52:17 PM

The cache size makes very little speed difference. I also recommend the WD6400AAKS.
January 2, 2009 7:59:40 PM

can some one send me the link from newegg with the search results being 640gb(or what ever will show the best results of 640gb HD's) in the search box.

For example type 640gb into the search box, click go. And copy the next page address and paste it and post it here.

For some reason the site doesnt allow me to search anything now.
January 2, 2009 8:13:24 PM

shortstuff_mt WHY would you recommend it?
January 2, 2009 9:09:09 PM

Ive seen some HD Tune benchmarks and the WD has a much better access time around 11-12 while the Seagate has averagering of around 14.7 or so. How does access time effect your performance.

Though the WD seem to have a lower average of around the lower 90'sMB while the Seagate has a average of around 95 and up.
January 2, 2009 9:18:49 PM

Whats better in a hard drive better read times OR better write times?
January 3, 2009 10:15:50 PM

I still i dont know what to get look at these benchmarks

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid [...] _reviewed/

Is this a actaull high failure rate with the seagate 640gbs? Newegg reviews only really show that like the 750gp ones have the high failure rates?
January 4, 2009 2:48:30 AM

read times are more important imo... WD 640GB AAKS "Blue" ftw imo. more cache is pretty much a marketing gimmick.
January 4, 2009 4:31:19 AM

ok some one tell me this. Is it better to have an access time of around 11-12ms with ever thing else good averages and speeds. OR is it better to have an access time of 15+ms BUT slighty better every thing else, above good averages and speeds. Only slightly better then the first option.

Thank you.
January 4, 2009 7:58:01 AM

Im just gonna get the Black one WD6401AALS. ThoughI would like to know how would a WD 640gb BLACK compare to a 750GB GREEN? Im guessing the black would be far more better interms of performance?
January 4, 2009 12:37:55 PM

Greens offer lower power usage, 5400-7200 variable platter speed, cooler and quieter operation. They trade performance for these advantages.
Compared to the blue AAKS, the black AALS drive has 2 processors, 32MB of cache instead of 16 and 2 platter bearings instead of 1. It can't be slower than the blue, but could be faster. 640GB is a sweet spot at current density levels (about 333 GB/platter).
!