WD Black Vs Toshiba N300 vs X300

[hhamama66]

I need a 6 TB hard drive to store my files. I'm not doing anything special. Just gonna store games and media on it. I have trouble deciding between the 3 drives I mentioned in the title. I know the WD black is known to be reliable for what it's designed to do, but it's a little pricey at $230 currently on Amazon. The X300 and N300 by comparison are both $180 on Amazon. I don't know anything about the X300 and N300 besides that the latter is a server/NAS drive and might be a little more durable than the former. Other than all three being 7200 RPM 3.5 inch drives, I don't know anything else. Here's what's I need to know, which one is faster for my use case, are the Toshiba drives reliable and is it worth it to shell out $50 more for the WD?

[TheBean]

from spec sheet, n300 is better than x300

[hhamama66]

1 minute ago, Saksham said:

from spec sheet, n300 is better than x300

In terms of speed, warranty or reliability?

[TheBean]

but according to advertising, x300 is 'made for gaming'... whatever that means

[TheBean]

1 minute ago, hhamama66 said:

In terms of speed, warranty or reliability?

reliability. not sure about speed

[TheBean]

which model of the 6tb black hdd? there is one with more cache and one with less. 

wd6003fzbx has more cache than wd6002fzwx

[hhamama66]

Just now, Saksham said:

which model of the 6tb black hdd? there is one with more cache and one with less. 

wd6003fzbx has more cache than wd6002fzwx

I was looking at the WD6003FZBX

[TheBean]

22 hours ago, hhamama66 said:

I was looking at the WD6003FZBX

honestly, hdds are not very different from each other. if you are not using the drive for NAS, no point getting nas drives because they are optimized for 24/7 use and not speed. just buy the cheapest 7200rpm drive. speed differences will be insignificant if (and only if) the cache sizes are the same