• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Seagate vs. WD, which HDD should I invest in?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Mobious

Mobious

Member
​
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Location
Massachusetts
OK, the two candidates are:

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 (Perpendicular Recording) 320Gb SATA-II
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148140

Western Digital Caviar RE 320Gb SATA-II
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136053

The Seagate rings up at $79, while the Caviar is an extra $15 on top of that. I have a Caviar now (160Gb) and I couldn't be happier (last one was a Seagate, which died on me). Does anyone have anything to say about either of these that might sway my decision at all? I'm looking to see which one is faster, as well as quieter, and will give me the best bang for the buck. Mind you: the extra $15 is NOT an issue, if anyone wants to vouch for the Western Digital.

-Mobious-
 
No need for the RE(RAID Edition) if you're not putting it in RAID. The new WD AAKS drives have had good reviews or the Hitachi T7K500 series has been shown as a good OS/app drive. Just doing storage, get the Seagate.
 
I'm getting two for a RAID 1 for storage, but 320Gb is that max amount of space I want to pay for.

-Mobious-
 
Tusken - In a matrix raid configuration? Two 320G Seagates or Two 320G Hitachi? or Two 320G WD?

If I had the money for a Raptor I would but I can't see shelling out the $$$.
 
dudleycpa said:
Tusken - In a matrix raid configuration? Two 320G Seagates or Two 320G Hitachi? or Two 320G WD?

If I had the money for a Raptor I would but I can't see shelling out the $$$.
Click to expand...
I'm getting 2x 36Gb Raptors and putting them on Raid-0 for OS and programs, and 2x 320Gb (brand is to be determined, thusly why I'm asking) and putting them on Raid-1 for storage. Raptors for storage is moderately expensive.

-Mobious-
 
Mobious said:
I'm getting 2x 36Gb Raptors and putting them on Raid-0 for OS and programs, and 2x 320Gb (brand is to be determined, thusly why I'm asking) and putting them on Raid-1 for storage. Raptors for storage is moderately expensive.

-Mobious-
Click to expand...

I want two 320Gb on a Matrix Raid setup. I wonder if someone would recomend the same drives or different one?
 
I would recommend the Seagates. 5-year warranty is great, and the performance difference between them and other similar drives is almost negligible. Transfer rates are great on the Seagates, and access times are comparable to other modern 7200RPM's.

I've been nothing but pleased with my four 7200.10's.
 
WOW! I just read that thread, bing. Killer. Thanks for the linky :thup:

I also love my Seagate 7200.10 320GB HD's. I have 8 or 9 of them now :eek:

:cool:
 
I re-counted, and I have 10 or 11 of the 320GB's :eek: :eek: . LOL - I'll hang onto them for B/U Drives ;) I'll have to have something to back up a 1.5TB RAID-5 array onto, plus all of my other PC Backups...

I have found those 5.25" Hot-Swap "Caddy-less" SATA Drive Bays to be FANTASTIC for B/U useage. No caddies, just pop in the SATA HD, Back-up, and pull it out... Now, if only I could figure out how to make the ICH8R on all 3 of my primary PC's work as a "Hot Swappable" interface :(

:cool:
 
well i have a 80gig 7200.10 and compared to my 7200.7 is much much faster at loading things. my vote goes for the seagate 320 perps!
 
I vote for the the Seagates, though I doubt you can go wrong with the Western Digitals.

I wish Seagate would come out with something that'd rival the Raptors.
 
dudleycpa said:
Tusken - In a matrix raid configuration? Two 320G Seagates or Two 320G Hitachi? or Two 320G WD?

If I had the money for a Raptor I would but I can't see shelling out the $$$.
Click to expand...
Matrix RAID doesn't change the performance of a drive relative to another. For an OS/app I'd still get an WD AAKS or Hitachi T7K500 due to better single user performance. For storage, the Seagate with the higher STR(sustained transfer rate) should be better. Note, these are minute differences, but differences nonetheless.
 
by single user, you mean that it's just not SHARED over a network... is that all? i didn't know that the WD was faster than 7200.10 for "single user"...
 
g0dM@n said:
by single user, you mean that it's just not SHARED over a network... is that all? i didn't know that the WD was faster than 7200.10 for "single user"...
Click to expand...
I think that's correct. HD benchmarks are usually divided into two categories: single user scenarios, and server scenarios. Technology like NCQ really helps out on the server side, but tends to introduce too much overhead to be useful for a single user.

If you haven't already, you should check out StorageReview.com.
 
johan851 said:
I think that's correct. HD benchmarks are usually divided into two categories: single user scenarios, and server scenarios. Technology like NCQ really helps out on the server side, but tends to introduce too much overhead to be useful for a single user.

If you haven't already, you should check out StorageReview.com.
Click to expand...
Looking into it - thanks!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Which Raid Controller Is Best??? LSI MegaRAID MR SAS 9260-8i Vs. Dell PERC H310
Replies
6
Views
5K
Aaylianna
A
V
Seagate Portable HD vs WD?
Replies
15
Views
650
UltraTaco
UltraTaco
T
Need help, new to m.2 in general and want to get an nvme? Which do i buy?
Replies
5
Views
512
Woomack
W
C
Too much case! Need help with fans!
Replies
6
Views
596
Dlaw
D
K
Which Motherboard and RAM for a VmWare and Audio Enthusiast Build?
Replies
4
Views
1K
King_Yoshi
K
Back