New 3TB WD HDD

[Baresdakilla]

I was looking for a new 3TB HDD from WD and I found three of them in my price range. But I can't seem to find any difference between the three. The HDDs are: WD Purple, WD Red and WD AV-GP. Is there any difference between those three for normal desktop usage whatsoever?

[Enderman]

the purple is for video surveillance, red is for NAS, and the other idk

i recommend the red one, it is very reliable and has good speeds

[TyagoDani]

purple -> surveillance

red -> nas

black -> highest performance

blue -> lower peformance but better bang for the buck

green -> storage on a budget

[Baresdakilla]

Thanks guys, I'll go for the RED one then...

[Mao_Zedong]

The red is the best of the three, but I would get a seagate barracuda over that. It will cost less, be quieter, and perform at least as well.

[WoodenMarker]

The red is the best of the three, but I would get a seagate barracuda over that. It will cost less, be quieter, and perform at least as well.

Barracudas are louder than Reds. I use Reds myself mostly due to them being the most consistently quiet drives I've found.

[ChineseChef]

I would also grab a Seagate, but that's cause I am a cheap bastard. 

 

But on a side note, who are all you people that have HDDs loud enough that they can be heard over everything else? 

[Captain_WD]

I was looking for a new 3TB HDD from WD and I found three of them in my price range. But I can't seem to find any difference between the three. The HDDs are: WD Purple, WD Red and WD AV-GP. Is there any difference between those three for normal desktop usage whatsoever?

 

Hey Baresdakilla,

 

As the guys pointed out, WD Purple is a surveillance class drive that has optimized sequential speeds and works really quiet, but it is designed for surveillance setups and might cause some issues in regular desktops; WD Red is a NAS/RAID class drive that works great and safe in such environments; WD AV-GP is again a surveillance class drive designed for streaming and recording which also works quiet. Out of the three I would recommend WD Red for a regular desktop. 

Depending on what you are going to use the drive for, I would recommend looking at WD Green for storage, WD Black for performance or WD Blue for an everyday drive. 

 

Captain_WD.

[Baresdakilla]

 

Hey Baresdakilla,

 

As the guys pointed out, WD Purple is a surveillance class drive that has optimized sequential speeds and works really quiet, but it is designed for surveillance setups and might cause some issues in regular desktops; WD Red is a NAS/RAID class drive that works great and safe in such environments; WD AV-GP is again a surveillance class drive designed for streaming and recording which also works quiet. Out of the three I would recommend WD Red for a regular desktop. 

Depending on what you are going to use the drive for, I would recommend looking at WD Green for storage, WD Black for performance or WD Blue for an everyday drive. 

 

Captain_WD.

 

Thanks for definitive answer, you guys really seem to know what you talk about.

[Captain_WD]

Thanks for definitive answer, you guys really seem to know what you talk about.

 

Feel free to ask if you happen to have any other questions

 

Captain_WD.

[WoodenMarker]

But on a side note, who are all you people that have HDDs loud enough that they can be heard over everything else?

I run all Noctuas and hear my 3TB Reds over them quite easily even though they're suspended with open-celled foam.

[swifty7]

which has the best reliability?

[boat]

which has the best reliability?

 

Backblaze did a study showing for each manufacturer, their 3 TB HDDs have the highest failure rate. Seagate, however, set a high score for the annual failure rate. 

 

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/

 

I'm aware that there are people who prefer Seagate because they've been using it, but statistics > anecdotal evidence (which equivalent to a very small, biased sample in a survey), unless you somehow find reason to believe that the numbers are rigged.

 

To answer your question, 4 TB hard drives are least likely to fail. Even the Seagate does well with their 4 TB hard drives, despite their over-40 percent failure rate on their 3 TB HDDs.

[ChineseChef]

I run all Noctuas and hear my 3TB Reds over them quite easily even though they're suspended with open-celled foam.

 

After losing some hearing from working in airplanes and loud environments, I am simply impressed that you can hear this at all.  Fan noise I can understand, they can get loud.

 

Although, I guess my computer is in its own room, and I always have headphones on or other noise in the background when I am near my computer.  So I could understand how people who do other activities around their computers might hear more unwanted noise from their systems.

[swifty7]

Backblaze did a study showing for each manufacturer, their 3 TB HDDs have the highest failure rate. Seagate, however, set a high score for the annual failure rate. 

 

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/

 

I'm aware that there are people who prefer Seagate because they've been using it, but statistics > anecdotal evidence (which equivalent to a very small, biased sample in a survey), unless you somehow find reason to believe that the numbers are rigged.

 

To answer your question, 4 TB hard drives are least likely to fail. Even the Seagate does well with their 4 TB hard drives, despite their over-40 percent failure rate on their 3 TB HDDs.

I wonder why Seagate's 3TB drive have such high failure rates compared to their 4TB ones.... what makes their 4TB drives better?

 

I have many Seagate drives, several 3TB ones and so far(knock on wood) have worked perfectly. 

[WoodenMarker]

Backblaze did a study showing for each manufacturer, their 3 TB HDDs have the highest failure rate. Seagate, however, set a high score for the annual failure rate.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/

I'm aware that there are people who prefer Seagate because they've been using it, but statistics > anecdotal evidence (which equivalent to a very small, biased sample in a survey), unless you somehow find reason to believe that the numbers are rigged.

To answer your question, 4 TB hard drives are least likely to fail. Even the Seagate does well with their 4 TB hard drives, despite their over-40 percent failure rate on their 3 TB HDDs.

I wonder why Seagate's 3TB drive have such high failure rates compared to their 4TB ones.... what makes their 4TB drives better?

I have many Seagate drives, several 3TB ones and so far(knock on wood) have worked perfectly.

Take their results with a huge grain of salt as their 'testing' methodologies are questionable. http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6028/dispelling-backblaze-s-hdd-reliability-myth-the-real-story-covered/index5.html

[ChineseChef]

Backblaze did a study showing for each manufacturer, their 3 TB HDDs have the highest failure rate. Seagate, however, set a high score for the annual failure rate. 

 

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/

 

I'm aware that there are people who prefer Seagate because they've been using it, but statistics > anecdotal evidence (which equivalent to a very small, biased sample in a survey), unless you somehow find reason to believe that the numbers are rigged.

 

To answer your question, 4 TB hard drives are least likely to fail. Even the Seagate does well with their 4 TB hard drives, despite their over-40 percent failure rate on their 3 TB HDDs.

 

 

You do know this study is completely flawed and worthless right? 

 

They bought the cheapest drives they could, used them in the worst and most demanding ways possible, and then just said it was the drives fault.  They basically bought the cheapest engine they could find, and red lined it till it exploded, then said they were surprised it exploded when they treated it so badly. 

 

If Seagate, or any company for that matter, had the kind of failure rates that Backblaze showed, that company would be out of business in a year.  They were using the wrong part for the job, and surprise, it didn't work.

 

 

 

I wonder why Seagate's 3TB drive have such high failure rates compared to their 4TB ones.... what makes their 4TB drives better?

 

I have many Seagate drives, several 3TB ones and so far(knock on wood) have worked perfectly. 

 

The reason the 3tb Seagate drives failed so much for them is because they bought tons of super cheaper, external drives.  Then took them out of the casings, used them in badly designed storage pods where the drives got super hot.  And they put them under extreme enterprise loads.  The secondary reason that the Seagate drives did so badly by comparison is because they were the cheapest and most purchased drives they used. 

 

I have 24 Seagate 3tb drives, and I don't treat them gently; and yet not one has died on me.