Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Difference between Seagate Barracuda XT and normal version?

Last response: in Storage
Share
December 16, 2011 5:48:13 AM

Hi guys, just wondering if there is a difference between these two 2TB HDDs:
Barracuda XT ST32000641AS - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
and the
Barracuda ST2000DM001 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
When looking through the specs for each drive, I couldn't really find a difference between the two. Is there a difference that isn't listed on newegg? Or does the XT have a longer warranty or something of that sort? I just found out that the XT has a 5 year warranty and the regular Barracuda has only a 2-year.. I am still looking for information about specification differences.
I understand that Seagate will be discontinuing the Barracuda XT line very shortly.. would that have an effect on the warranty if I bought it?

Also I am aware that the prices for HDDs right now are high, but at ~10 cents per GB it still doesn't seem so bad to me. How much money could I save by waiting a few months for a similar 2TB HDD?

If I do end up getting the normal Barracuda (not the XT), I plan to buy it from this site, as it is about $50 cheaper. I originally posted the newegg page for it so that it's simpler to compare the two. http://www.alwayslowest.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=shop.d...
So my main question is, is the XT worth the extra $100?

I'm open to any other suggestions for HDDs at least 1TB (but preferably 2TB). I'm going to use it to store lots of data and I will put it in my gaming rig when I build it in about a month. Thanks a lot!

Lauren

PS: Any thoughts on extended warranties? They run about $32 for 2 years..
a b G Storage
December 16, 2011 2:02:06 PM

The difference seems to be in QC and build. The XT has higher factory specs for QC and may have binned components chosen for performance.

The difference is $50, not $100.

I have two Seagate 1.5 TB drives (bought for $50 apiece in July) with the 5900 RPM speed. They run about the same data transfer rate as the 7200 rpm models. You can save $20 over the lower priced one if you go with a 5900 rpm 2TB Seagate.

I think you could consider this Samsung for price and quality: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Extended warranties are generally a profit center for sellers/OEMs. Don't get one on a 5 yr warranty, but even on a 2 yr manufacturer's warranty they are iffy.
m
0
l
December 17, 2011 4:42:24 AM

Thanks for your reply.
Actually the difference between the XT and regular Barracuda is $100 because if you check the third link I posted I would save $50 on a regular Barracuda. So between the XT and the Barracuda on the cheaper website, the difference is $100.

Also, I don't really see any benefits to the Samsung you posted vs the Barracuda at this link (the last one I posted in the topic): http://www.alwayslowest.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=shop.d...
With that website, the Barracuda is $10 cheaper and has 2TB, SATA 6 Mb/s, and a 64MB cache vs the Samsung's 1TB, 3 Mb/s, and 32MB cache.
Is there something I missed? I understand if you didn't see the last link for the cheaper Barracuda on alwayslowest.com then the Samsung would've seemed a better option.

Thanks.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 317 G Storage
December 18, 2011 7:21:01 AM

Have a look at Section 2.0 in each of the product manuals:

Barracuda XT SATA Product Manual, Rev. D (ST32000641AS):
http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/docs/manual/...

Barracuda SATA Product Manual, Rev. C (Gen 14, ST2000DM001):
http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/docs/manual/...

The max sustained data transfer rate for the ST32000641AS is 138MB/s, whereas the eqivalent spec for the ST2000DM001 is 210MB/s.

That said, the other specs for the ST2000DM001 look strange. For example, the 2TB drive is listed as having the same number of heads (6) and disks (3) as the 3TB model. Instead I would have expected that it would have 4 heads and 2 disks in order to maintain the same data density of 1GB per platter, and therefore the same transfer rate.
m
0
l
February 25, 2012 8:22:57 PM

chesteracorgi said:
The difference seems to be in QC and build. The XT has higher factory specs for QC and may have binned components chosen for performance.

The difference is $50, not $100.

I have two Seagate 1.5 TB drives (bought for $50 apiece in July) with the 5900 RPM speed. They run about the same data transfer rate as the 7200 rpm models. You can save $20 over the lower priced one if you go with a 5900 rpm 2TB Seagate.

I think you could consider this Samsung for price and quality: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Extended warranties are generally a profit center for sellers/OEMs. Don't get one on a 5 yr warranty, but even on a 2 yr manufacturer's warranty they are iffy.


FALSE: "They run about the same data transfer rate as the 7200 rpm models. You can save $20 over the lower priced one if you go with a 5900 rpm 2TB Seagate."

I have owned 3-4 Green or LP or 5900 HDDs and all of them (with the exception of one) even breaks 60MB/s. ALL of my 7200 RPM drives (I own all seagate; LP or otherwise) break 100MB/s+ and stay there during large file transfers.

If you don't believe my personal experience, Benchmark them. 5900s CANNOT by their design, hit the same transfer rates as 7200s. If you transfer ANYTHING HD or Blueray, avoid the headache and get 7200.
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 12:05:27 PM

Hello all.

That's a bunch of really weird information supplied here:

1. There are 5,200, 10,000, and even 15,000 RPMs hard drives. Never heard of a "5900 rpm speed" drives.

2. Like most products these days, the more letters are in the product model designation, it actually means LESS features or lower-specs than the "plain-named" sibling. Asian LCD monitors are a clear example of such trend.

3. Case in point: Barracudas XTs are cheaper, have less throughput speeds than the "plain" Barracudas.

4. 'Cudas 7200.12 1 TB do pull out consistently 105 MB/s in HD Tune tests. In RAID-0 the go up to 190 MB/s in average.

5. MY newest Seagate, the beastly 3TB Barracuda does 160 MB/s in read tests, in single mode. So we can extrapolate that in a risky RAID-0 6TB 2 drive array in could comfortably hit past 300 MB/s all day long, and for years to come. That's SSD territory, for about a 1/20 the price per megabyte of said gizmos.

1 or 5 year warranty? Why bother with that? Since the 90s a hard drive either arrives dead (mishandled), crashes within a month (sloppy QC) or last for years.
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 10:55:51 AM




Thanks for pointing that one out. From Seagate's literature ("A unique 5900-RPM platform delivers the fastest performance of any
eco friendly drive available."), seems that they did the analogous "undervoltaged-to-draw-less-power" thing with some 7,200 rpms drive in order to achieve a green rating. Also, it seems that they are the only ones building such a in-between speeds to cater some specific maket hole or something. Not even in wikipedia or tomshardware are mentioning such a custom speed as being "standard".

In any case, a 5,900 rpm drive that does WAY less than an outdate 5,200 rpm ATA drive from early 2000s is in serious trouble or is about to die any time soon. I'm currently getting rid of such a latter drive, since when new (a Seagate 7,200 rpm 160 GB ATA unit) it pulled past 60 MB/s and now it sank to a measly 40 MB/s on average reading tests: SMART diagnostics confirmed that several thresholds are in the "warning" zone.

Also, if doing RAID setups, keep in mind that even in same model, same-batch drives sometimes you can appreciate HUGE performance differences. Out my recently "undone" RAID-0 setup with two 1TB 'Cudas one exhibited 105 MB/s average speeds, the other a mere 80 MB/s on average, for an exact speed difference of a whopping 25%. That's a HUGE gap. And it's why the former RAID setup couldn't deliver exactly TWICE the speeds of a single drive: One was limping and slowing-down the whole setup.

In resume: Do tests with fastidious precision and objetivity, and NEVER trust specs on paper. Think of them as mere guidelines. Even a setup that works great on a specific OS sucks big time in another because of an overlooked setting or just an underspec drive.
m
0
l
!