Help me pick between these hard drives

[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
Seagate 750
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?