Seagate vs. Samsung vs. Western Digital HDD's

thekl0wn · 12-19-2007, 07:24 PM

Here's the options on a 3.0gb/s SATA drives:

Seagate vs. Samsung vs. Western Digital

Which is going to offer the best reliability? All offer latency and seek times well within what I need, and all are 16MB cache, and all are priced the same. The WD & Samsung are 500GB whereas the Seagate is only 400GB. I could suffer the 100GB loss if the Seagate is the best option for durability.

imsati · 12-19-2007, 07:41 PM

I swear by WD

It's def. my HDD of choice! I have had nice results with Seagates in the past, but whenever possible I use and recommend WD products.

SirKenin · 12-19-2007, 07:49 PM

For durability, under anything except very light home use, the Seagate will simply destroy the WD, no question.

thekl0wn · 12-19-2007, 07:49 PM

Ever tried the Samsungs? HDD's is one place I've never used a Samsung product, but I've been satisfied with them in every other realm.

I would tend to lean towards the WD's over the Seagates, as "back in the day" of my PC repair, I replaced more Seagates rather than WD's, but that's not to say that the OEM's weren't putting a higher percentage of SG's in than WD's.

lucky7 · 12-19-2007, 07:50 PM

Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST3500320AS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148288
Theres ur 500GB and its 32MB cache, i cant tell u if its good because ive never had it but its what im getting for my new computer.

SirKenin · 12-19-2007, 07:50 PM

I've used all three, sold and serviced all three (and I'm talking in the hundreds and hundreds of drives).

Without a doubt, the WD is the biggest curse of the bunch. Samsung? Meh, they're ok. Some models are very fast and reliable, some are just "meh". The Seagate is definitely the champ overall.

EDIT: When I say "WD" I mean the Caviar and Caviar SE. They are just junk. The RE and the Raptors are really good, although I can't say I'm overly ga ga over this RaptorX that I use in mine. In my own puter I have a RaptorX, Raptor and SE. The SE is total garbage, but I haven't had the time to swap it out yet.

Eternal Rest · 12-20-2007, 01:51 AM

I've always bought western digital because they seem to be cheaper and I've never had a problem with one. You get more storage for the price. I've never bought a seagate but I've heard nothing but positive feedback about them.

Noir · 12-20-2007, 02:02 PM

I think those are all good hd, but because a bad past experience with seagate (really 5x give me a headache even i have to switch mb just to know that the problem is from the hd it self even more after i change the hd to the distributor several times and the problem still exist), i dont want to rely on it anymore.
Now i use western digital and its solid and reliable until now.
My vote is western digital.

pumaking · 12-21-2007, 05:35 AM

I have 2 200GB WD Caviar PATA and 1 Seagate 160GB 3GB Sata.

The seagate seems to be a smudge faster.

2048Megabytes · 12-22-2007, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumaking

I have 2 200GB WD Caviar PATA and 1 Seagate 160GB 3GB Sata.

The seagate seems to be a smudge faster.

After reading about Serial Advanced Technology Attachment processing speeds versus Parallel Advanced Technology Attachments, I think the biggest advantage is the SATA cable size over the PATA. PATA ribbon cables may have an adverse effect on cooling as they are bulky and can obstruct the flow of air.

12-19-2007, 07:24 PM	#1
thekl0wn Byte Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: PoCo, IN Age: 30 Posts: 13	Seagate vs. Samsung vs. Western Digital HDD's Here's the options on a 3.0gb/s SATA drives: Seagate vs. Samsung vs. Western Digital Which is going to offer the best reliability? All offer latency and seek times well within what I need, and all are 16MB cache, and all are priced the same. The WD & Samsung are 500GB whereas the Seagate is only 400GB. I could suffer the 100GB loss if the Seagate is the best option for durability. Last edited by thekl0wn; 12-19-2007 at 07:26 PM.

12-19-2007, 07:41 PM	#2
imsati VIP Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Central, NJ Posts: 3,415	I swear by WD It's def. my HDD of choice! I have had nice results with Seagates in the past, but whenever possible I use and recommend WD products. __________________ --Jay (Resident Forum lurker)

12-19-2007, 07:50 PM	#6
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	I've used all three, sold and serviced all three (and I'm talking in the hundreds and hundreds of drives). Without a doubt, the WD is the biggest curse of the bunch. Samsung? Meh, they're ok. Some models are very fast and reliable, some are just "meh". The Seagate is definitely the champ overall. EDIT: When I say "WD" I mean the Caviar and Caviar SE. They are just junk. The RE and the Raptors are really good, although I can't say I'm overly ga ga over this RaptorX that I use in mine. In my own puter I have a RaptorX, Raptor and SE. The SE is total garbage, but I haven't had the time to swap it out yet. Last edited by SirKenin; 12-19-2007 at 07:54 PM.

12-20-2007, 01:51 AM	#7
Eternal Rest Byte Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 122	I've always bought western digital because they seem to be cheaper and I've never had a problem with one. You get more storage for the price. I've never bought a seagate but I've heard nothing but positive feedback about them. __________________ Case - Antec 900 Mobo - ASUS nForce 650i SLI Processor - Intel Q6600 quad core Vid Card - eVGA 8600GTS HDD - Western Digital 750GB PSU - Rosewill 900W RAM - GEIL 4GB DDR2 800

12-20-2007, 02:02 PM	#8
Noir Byte Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Indonesia Posts: 188	I think those are all good hd, but because a bad past experience with seagate (really 5x give me a headache even i have to switch mb just to know that the problem is from the hd it self even more after i change the hd to the distributor several times and the problem still exist), i dont want to rely on it anymore. Now i use western digital and its solid and reliable until now. My vote is western digital. __________________ Code name "Zephyr" CPU: Core 2 Duo E7400 OC @3.15 Ghz MOBO: Abit Fatal1ty FP-IN9 SLI Nvidia NForce 650i RAM: Mushkin HP 2GB (2x1GB) PC6400 800Mhz GPU: MSI Nvidia Geforce 8800GT 512MB DDR3 OC Edition HDD: Western Digital Caviar 320GB SOUND: Creative Audigy Value W/ Altec Lansing FX4021 Display: LCD Samsung Syncmaster 223BW Case: CoolerMaster CM690 PSU: Silverstone Strider ST50F 500W

12-19-2007, 07:49 PM	#3
SirKenin banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,711	For durability, under anything except very light home use, the Seagate will simply destroy the WD, no question.

12-19-2007, 07:50 PM	#5
lucky7 Byte Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 143	Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST3500320AS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148288 Theres ur 500GB and its 32MB cache, i cant tell u if its good because ive never had it but its what im getting for my new computer.

12-21-2007, 05:35 AM	#9
pumaking Byte Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 161	I have 2 200GB WD Caviar PATA and 1 Seagate 160GB 3GB Sata. The seagate seems to be a smudge faster. __________________ ASUS Crosshair AMD Athlon 64 X2 Windsor AM2 4200+ 65W OE: 2.2GHZ OC: 2.45ghz Antec Nine Hundred Case Antec TruePower Trio 650W 160GB Seagate SATA 4x1GB OCZ DDR2 800 PC6400 Gold Edition BFG 8800GT OC x2 SLI

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode