Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDD WD vs Seagate

Last response: in Systems
Share
April 15, 2010 11:13:35 PM

Hey guys
When asking around about my proposed build someone suggested i swap out the chosen HDDs i had listed.

The original ones I had were two of these: Seagate ST3500418AS 500GB Hard Drive SATAII 7200rpm 16MB Cache - OEM

the ones suggested were: Western Digital WD5001AALS 500GB Hard Drive SATAII 7200rpm 32MB Cache - OEM Caviar Black

Upon seeing the cache size on the recommended one i was wondering just how stable they are and if the switch would be worth it.
I've had both seagates and WD but its been many a year since i've been in the market to buy one so I have no clue where they are in terms of competition.

can anyone shine a light on this and let me know if you think spending the extra £5 will work out worth it, and yes i know its only a fiver but it all adds up :) 
cheers

More about : hdd seagate

April 15, 2010 11:22:11 PM

The WD drive is slower than the Seagate drive due to only having half of the platter density. Don't pay much attention to the cache size, it has VERY little effect on drive speed. I actually wouldn't get either of those drives. I would get the Samsung F3 500GB drive.

SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD502HJ 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive $54.99

I don't know why anybody would have told you to get a more expensive HD that's considerably slower. The only benefit to the WD drive is the 5 year warranty.
April 15, 2010 11:34:02 PM

see this is why i always get a few opinions lol. to be honest i never really looked close at the specs, i'm a bit too tired to be having a look at something that on a good day can confuse me.
ty for your input
Related resources
April 15, 2010 11:35:50 PM

Both the Seagate and Samsung drives use 500GB platters and go back and forth in benchmarks. Either would work, but the Samsung drive is more reliable IMO.
April 16, 2010 3:31:14 PM

Yes but u failed to metion that as of late the newer seagates are more junk than anything. after they did some manufacturing changes seagates hdds r not worth the trouble. So go Western Digital!
April 16, 2010 6:00:54 PM

Snowolf said:
Yes but u failed to metion that as of late the newer seagates are more junk than anything. after they did some manufacturing changes seagates hdds r not worth the trouble. So go Western Digital!


The 7200.11 drives had some well-documented problems, but from everything I've heard, the 7200.12 (the current generation with 500 GB platters) are fine.
April 16, 2010 8:09:32 PM

everything i've found about seagates is that the 7200.12 has a much better track record than the 7200.11.
I spose its just down to preference but thats where the problem comes in, i dunno which i would prefer lol
April 16, 2010 8:31:20 PM

If you want the fastest 500 GB drive, get either the Seagate 7200.12 or the Samsung Spinpoint F3. As shortstuff mentions, WD isn't making a single-platter 500 GB drive right now. I would get whichever one is less expensive, they've both got pretty good track records.

If you're looking at 1 TB, the 7200.12 and F3 are still there, and the competing WD drive (that uses 500 GB platters) is the WD1002FAEX, with SATA 6 Gb/s but it's more expensive than the competition. (The FALS is also available, but that uses more platters.)
April 17, 2010 5:18:44 AM

well if u ask me i'll take working over malfuhaing anyday. but do what u want but if seagate goes bad on u dont say i didnt worn u. and i'm not sayin that i dont like seagate. in fact i have 3 seagate hdds. but i got mine before they started to monkey around with them.
April 17, 2010 5:20:45 AM

really, between those two you will not be able to tell the difference on your computer just go with western digital from what ive read it seams more trustworthy and higher quality than seagate
April 17, 2010 5:27:33 AM

thank u!!! at lest some1 here gets what i'm talking about!
!