Help me pick between these hard drives

[faumble]

Quick question, need to decide, which of these hard drives is better? I will use it to save my daily work (storage, not boot drive)

WD 640 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136218)
Seagate 750 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148298)
Thanks in advance :)
JJ

[Telp]

Go with the Seagate. Much more reliable, and a very nice drive. It's also got more storage and a bigger cache.

[maestrocasa]

Ditto Telp. Go with the Seagate:rolleyes:

[faumble]

Thanks, hadn't seen the difference on cache, by the way, what is cache for or how are the 32MB of segates beneficial?
also, Why is seagate more reliable? just read the WD has only 2 platters vs the 3 from seagate so I am guessing the WD might have a smaller chance of failing?

[Telp]

Thanks, hadn't seen the difference on cache, by the way, what is cache for or how are the 32MB of segates beneficial?
also, Why is seagate more reliable? just read the WD has only 2 platters vs the 3 from seagate so I am guessing the WD might have a smaller chance of failing?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the bigger the cache, the more you can store (obviously) making the fetching of files, therefor the actual hard drive faster. The seagate is one of the best drives on the consumer market. I have an external with a barracuda inside and have been very pleased with it.

[Mr.Noisy]

Quick question, need to decide, which of these hard drives is better? I will use it to save my daily work (storage, not boot drive)

WD 640 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136218)
Seagate 750 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148298)
Thanks in advance :)
JJ


The WD is a great drive, the AAKS are very quick & quiet (I have 3), just for saving your daily work 16mb or 32mb cache won't really make a difference,
it really depends on the HDD size you want 640gb or 750gb ??
have a look at the Samsung f1 1tb HDD's they have 32mb cache too ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the bigger the cache, the more you can store

The Cache is about the Read & Write time to the Disk, it's a buffer to reduce the number of times data has to be physically written and read from the hard disk platter. By retaining recent data in the cache, Increasing performance as this memory is much faster and saves time on keep recalling information, thats why even though the WD is 16mb it will be faster than the Seagate due to the fact it has less Platters, It's now 2, WD used to use 3, my 3x 500gb WD5000AAKS are triple platter and still very fast & quiet, not sure about Seagate nowadays, they used to use 4 platters, but hey it's all just numbers to the average outsider, my wife said i'm a geek for knowing this :o

[nikiski]

Personally I prefer Seagate to WD as they have longer warranty on them (5 years vs. 3 years).

[brand]

The Seagate has a five year warranty compared to the three year warranty of the Western Digital. I think it says a whole lot is Seagate can stand behind their drive and guaranty it for five whole years. The Western Digital is almost half that.

When purchasing a storage drive the number one thing you should be concerned about is reliability, then after that speed. A fast drive does you no good if it fails and you loose all your data.

[jjahshik32]

I'd recommend the seagate as well better longevity and reliability.

[Shelton]

That WD is faster, quieter and runs cooler than the Seagate. As far as Seagate standing behind their products, try dealing with their firmware issue on a Mac (If you don't have Windows installed, it is impossible).

The WD is a much better drive, all around.

[Mr.Noisy]

The WD is a much better drive, all around.

I Agree, and WD are so sure of it's reliability they don't feel they need a five year warranty ;)

But hey why worry get the Seagate, and when it fails (it will) get a WD :)

[bigbird]

I have 2 500GB WD's and 2 320GB Seagates in my MP. The smaller Seagates are running at 27C and 26C and the larger WD's are running at 24C and 23C. Not much difference. The WD's are quieter, but not by much.

[Thiol]

I think the specs on barefeats and other sites argue that the 640 WD is faster. No one really knows if it'll be more reliable yet.

[JrdBeau]

Definitely the WD 640. I have two of them and they are awesome. I've owned many WD drives over the years and have always been happy with them.

[aibo]

the 640 — and it's not even a fair fight. 640 uses less platters, produces less heat, less noise, AND is faster than the the 32mb cache seagates (and doesnt have the firmware issues seagate does). what else do you need to know?

[big dainjerus]

what else do you need to know?

What do you think would be a better boot/app drive, a WD 640 or samsung 1 tb?

I am already planning on having 3 samsungs in bay 2, 3, and 4, but was wondering what would be the better boot drive.

[aibo]

What do you think would be a better boot/app drive, a WD 640 or samsung 1 tb?

I am already planning on having 3 samsungs in bay 2, 3, and 4, but was wondering what would be the better boot drive.
They're pretty close in performance -- I'd use the 6400AAKS just to save some money, as 1TB probably isn't necessary for a boot/apps drive. Can't go wrong either way with either of these drives.

[netdog]

Why not a Samsung F1 750 for your boot drive then?

[rob finch]

It's the 640 WD for me, very quick and very quiet. Awesome boot drive but equally good for storage. I hope they bring out a 1TB 3 platter version, with 32Mb cache too. :cool:

[faumble]

need some help with a hd external enclosure for one of these hds, there are so many to choose! and dont know anything about any of these brands.
having a fan is really helpful? I really dont know how to choose, am looking for recommendations I'm searching for something that has esata and either firewire or usb or both (is firewire substantially better than usb?)
these are some I found and think might be good
Macally (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817347017)
Vantec (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817392018)
Thermaltake (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153061)
Rosewill (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817173040)
Bytech (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817145009)


Thanks in advance
JJ

[adjuster]

What firmware issues? I have two samsung 750's in my MacPro. Other than having one Samsung 750 arrive DOA from Newegg, which they promptly replaced, they work fine. The Barefeats test appeared to like WD for some tests, other drives for other tests.

My impression is that both are good drives. I would go with whatever is less expensive or has some feature that is important to you. A five vs. three year warrantee is only an indication of the manufacturer's confidence in the drive. You will probably replace the drive with a better one before the expiration of the warrantee.

[dukeblue91]

Why not a Samsung F1 750 for your boot drive then?

I second that.
I have 2 of them and they run great, quiet and fast.

[oban14]

The WD640 is vastly superior to the 750 in every metric besides size. They use two 320 gig platters and it's faster than a Raptor by many benchmarks.

Don't forget to take off the jumper before installing it - that will increase your speed from 1.5 gigs to 3 gigs.

[jason999]

Quick question, need to decide, which of these hard drives is better? I will use it to save my daily work (storage, not boot drive)

WD 640 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136218)
Seagate 750 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148298)
Thanks in advance :)
JJ

Too easy.

Two different Seagates-------->
Either one is fine.

Seagate 750Gb with 32Mb cache, 7200rpm
ST3750330AS

Seagate 750Gb with 32Mb cache, 7200rpm
ST3750330NS

http://www.seagate.com

[greenlightracer]

Quick question, need to decide, which of these hard drives is better? I will use it to save my daily work (storage, not boot drive)

WD 640 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136218)
Seagate 750 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148298)
Thanks in advance :)
JJ

the 640, definitely. Its average transfer rate is near 145 MB/s. Ironically though, I'm looking to get a 640 for my boot drive and a 750 seagate for my Time Machine HD.

[brand]

Don't forget to take off the jumper before installing it - that will increase your speed from 1.5 gigs to 3 gigs.

Not that you'll ever see 3Gb/s on any modern SATA drive.

[aibo]

Why not a Samsung F1 750 for your boot drive then?

Because the F1 750GB is slower and less efficient — lower density platters than the 1TB model or the WD640AAKS. It uses old 250GB-per-platter technology (like Seagates do).

[Soop53]

Because the F1 750GB is slower and less efficient — lower density platters than the 1TB model or the WD640AAKS. It uses old 250GB-per-platter technology (like Seagates do).

I know one thing...I have two in my Pro and they are super quiet. Not one problem with them so far. I would not hesitate to buy the F1 750 again.

[aibo]

I know one thing...I have two in my Pro and they are super quiet. Not one problem with them so far. I would not hesitate to buy the F1 750 again.
It's not a bad choice, there are just better options out there. Tho I would still pick up an F1 750 over a Seagate.

[big dainjerus]

but I remember reading that the more free space on a hard drive, the faster it will be. So would having a samsung 1 tb for a boot drive, with plenty of extra space, be better than the WD 640, which probably won't end up having that much (relatively) free space when loaded with the whole logic suite, among other things?

[surflordca]

Quick question, need to decide, which of these hard drives is better? I will use it to save my daily work (storage, not boot drive)

WD 640 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136218)
Seagate 750 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148298)
Thanks in advance :)
JJ

Go with the Samsung F1 ;)

[faumble]

is there any way the Seagate is better technically wise? or performs better in some way then the WD?
I see it has 32mb cache over the 16 of WD but seems still WD is faster, or cache help in performance in some other way?....any other difference that favors the seagate? (besides the 5 years warranty)

[aibo]

is there any way the Seagate is better technically wise? or performs better in some way then the WD?
I see it has 32mb cache over the 16 of WD but seems still WD is faster, or cache help in performance in some other way?....any other difference that favors the seagate? (besides the 5 years warranty)
Here's a review of the newly announced VelociRaptor, and it includes about 15 pages of benchmarks for the Samsung F1, WD640, and Seagate's 32MB cache drives.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14583/1

WD640 consistently beats almost everything out there

[krye]

Seagate

[aibo]

Seagate
Their (32MB cache 7200.11) offerings are far slower than Samsung's F1 or WD's new 6400AAKS (see benchmarks above). They're also louder and hotter due to more platters. They do have a good 5 year warranty, though.

Seagate needs do some catch up move beyond 250GB/platter.

[Outsiderdude26]

Seagate.

[oban14]

Why do people keep saying "Seagate" when the WD640 supporters have offered empirical evidence showing exactly why the WD640 is a better drive? :confused: