1st. WD Caviar Black 2 TB SATA HDD (WD2002FAEX)
7,200 RPM - 64MB Buffer Size - SATA 6 GB/S - 1 Year Warranty
2nd. Seagate Barracuda 3TB SATA HDD (ST3000DM001)
7,200 RPM - 64MB Buffer - SATA 6 GB/S - 1 Year Warranty !
Both same Price: 200$ !!!
I will use this drive for OS Boot, Gaming and VMware Application,
My interest in speed not space meaning > 2TB is enough for me.
But if i wouldn't notice the difference between both in speed i will buy the 3TB for sure and benefit from the size !
No, I would say that they would feel the same -- as almost all SSDs feel the same, the two drives are close in performance.
The differences are small enough that only a benchmark program would notice.
Get the 3Tb, although I would probably install the OS on a partition of the drive rather than one giant 3Tb partition just to make it easier to reformat and reinstall to that partition if it was ever necessary.
May 13, 2012 7:29:14 PM
^ yeah what he said!
really in real world performance it is doubtful you will "feel" any difference. getting 33% more storage with a minimal difference in performance for the same price, is a better deal! esp. with HD prices as they are now.
I'm a big fan of WD and never consider myself using or even thinking of Seagate. With the end of Quantam, WD was the obvious choice. But the benchmark results have proven that Seagate 3TB ST3000DM001 has advantage over WD. I'm sharing one link for you to check it out:
Also check the other benchmark results. 3TB is the obvious choice. However do take a note that these tests are carried out one point of time and their results and test variables can be varied according to the tester/author. However, general results favor 3TB Seagate.