Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best deal on hard drive right now? update: *FOUND IT* 24hr deal

Last response: in Systems
Share
September 17, 2010 10:17:30 PM

NEW UPDATE: Newegg has the spinpoint f3 on sale for 58.99!!!! 24 hours.

Anyone been looking at HD's lately?

What's the best deal - taking in price/ capacity/ speed - keeping it under $100 pref. (obviously i'm leaving out SSD's)

i hear a lot about the spinpoint f3

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001U3S5S0/ref=ord_car...

amazon has it cheaper than newegg.

I've been having trouble finding understandable comparisons and benchmarks on HDs :??: 

September 17, 2010 10:32:33 PM

Newegg will have it to you in 3 days. Amazon will be around 10 unless you pay extra for shipping.
September 17, 2010 10:46:20 PM

dndhatcher said:
Newegg will have it to you in 3 days. Amazon will be around 10 unless you pay extra for shipping.


Amazon Prime? I'm not sure if it's still available, but there was an offer a while back where if you were a student and had an .edu email address, you could get 1 year of Amazon Prime for free and Prime ships in 2 days.
Related resources
September 17, 2010 10:46:28 PM

There's very little difference in benchmarks between the following drives:

Samsung Spinpoint F3 - 500 GB & 1 TB
Seagate 7200.12 - 500 GB & 1 TB
WD Caviar Black - WD1001FALS 1TB & WD1002FAEX 1 TB

The Spinpoint & Seagate are generally slightly faster on streaming reads/writes, while the WD drives are slightly faster at random access. All of which is beneath the level of your perception. I'd just recommend getting whichever of the above is cheapest, or failing that, whichever appeals to you most on warranty/reviews/perceived quality. Typically, the Spinpoint & 7200.12 are the same price, while the WD drives are more expensive.

These drives are recommended frequently, because they all (except the WD1001FALS) use new(ish) 500 GB platters, which means that they can pack more data in a smaller physical area...which leads to faster reads & writes. This is also the reason other sizes are not mentioned frequently.
September 17, 2010 10:53:16 PM

Hmm. I thought I had seen on Tom's benches that it performed pretty equivalently.

I was kind of confused about that, so I'm happy to retract that part of the statement. :) 
September 17, 2010 10:55:51 PM

There is a 2TB FASS model that is the same speed. They make the models so close and dont make it easy to find out technical details. Its really hard to keep track.

There is some usage (database?) that the FALS beat the F3 500GB, but not the 2TB FASS or 1TB F3, because it has a much larger cache.

September 18, 2010 3:41:46 AM

marraco said:
This study:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hdd-reliability-sto...

leads to the conclusion that Samsung is the least reliable, meanwhile Western Digital and seagate, may be equal or better.


Of course, that's old data, with old product lines, so it's probably not representative of current models.

Also, this, from the first page:

At this point, we also need to make very clear that the study is not representative and cannot be seen as a comprehensive reliability summary. It reflects only a very tiny fraction of the hard drive market.

And this, from the conclusion:

It's only the case in this study, which we've already said several times is extremely limited. With that said, research data covering the hard drive market is sparse, which is why this study remains interesting. The study is limited to a specific market segment in Eastern Europe, and only includes drives that were analyzed at Storelab. In it, we have user-triggered failures, as well as design failures.

To be clear: I have 4 Seagate drives in my home computers right now, as well as a couple of Hitachi. My point is that there's little good data on hard drive failure rates, so you might as well go with the best value/performance, depending on what you're looking for, and just make sure you take good backups.
September 18, 2010 4:02:08 AM

coldsleep said:
...
At this point, we also need to make very clear that the study is not representative and cannot be seen as a comprehensive reliability summary. It reflects only a very tiny fraction of the hard drive market.
...

I agree that is faulty data, but is the only available.
September 18, 2010 4:10:29 AM

Yeah, but it's old data. It may tell you something about the history of the manufacturers, but it doesn't tell you anything about current drives on the market.

For example, the Seagate drives in the data sample are largely (?) 7200.10 and 7200.11 series. While you can still buy those series on newegg, there's little reason to do so. While it's possible that the original article called out the specific Samsung & WD (etc.) models that are in the study, there's nothing in the Tom's article, so one is left to conclude that they're of a similar age as the Seagate models.

It's interesting, yes. Useful, not so much. You're welcome to form opinions based on the data, but there's not a lot to go on for real judgment of the current offerings from any major manufacturer.
September 18, 2010 4:47:26 AM

so er... basically it's the spinpoint f3 and the seagate 7200.12 series?
September 18, 2010 5:07:06 AM

Those are the best value, yes. If you want to pay more for a WD drive with similar performance due to brand preference, warranty, or whatever, that's within your rights.
September 18, 2010 5:09:20 AM

Price and performance are my concerns. course I want at least like 600 or 700 gigs but what's another 10 bucks for the TB.

That being said I've come to find the hard drive is one of the hardest components to compare and analyze.
September 18, 2010 12:19:00 PM

Thanks for the link, now that's a hot deal.
September 18, 2010 5:21:20 PM

sp12 said:
Thanks for the link, now that's a hot deal.


No problem, happy to share this deal with the community that has helped me SO much with my first build.

I hope lots of ppl can take advantage of this one - really great price. Timing couldn't be more perfect for me - I mean come on, the sale kicked in the night I posted this. :bounce: 
!