Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Yuvraj Mann

Why the price is same when their a big difference in size and speed?

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

The WD HDD is 50% heavier and bigger than Seagate drive, but Seagate HDD is slightly faster. The price was also same when i bought them online, and I could see size difference in pictures where i bought these.spacer.pngspacer.png

 

 

IMG20200323183834.jpg

 

IMG20200323183839.jpg

IMG20200323184058.jpg

IMG_20200324_212817.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yuvraj Mann said:

The WD HDD is 50% heavier and bigger than Seagate drive, but Seagate HDD is slightly faster. The price was also same when i bought them online, and I could see size difference in pictures where i bought these.

Title:

Quote

Why the price is same when their a big difference in size and speed?

They are the same size (physical and capacity wise), the speed is 5400RPM vs. 7200RPM, which is basically speed vs. capacity.


What are you exactly asking?


I apologize for the way I am. If my post seemed rude, that was not my intention. Just my ineptness in forming a nice coherent message.

"those times will never come back :("

"I wish I could find a way to end the pain, other than the way I keep thinking of"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
5 minutes ago, minibois said:

Title:

They are the same size (physical and capacity wise), the speed is 5400RPM vs. 7200RPM, which is basically speed vs. capacity.


What are you exactly asking?

they both are 5400rpm, and the wdd hdd is thicker

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yuvraj Mann said:

they both are 5400rpm, and the wdd hdd is thicker

Alright, assumed the Seagate was 7200RPM, as that is the more common variety of it.

But still, what are you asking?

If it's about the thickness; that probably has to do with the platter the manufacturer chose to use.


I apologize for the way I am. If my post seemed rude, that was not my intention. Just my ineptness in forming a nice coherent message.

"those times will never come back :("

"I wish I could find a way to end the pain, other than the way I keep thinking of"

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Yuvraj Mann said:

they both are 5400rpm, and the wdd hdd is thicker

The seagate drive is helium filled while the wd is not

Link to post
Share on other sites

They arent built to be portable so mass doesn't mean much. As for size, they are both 3.5" drives so that's practically the same as well.

 

I guess Seagate's reputation is worse than WD's?


CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.47V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why the seagate is faster is that the ST2000dm005 has 256 MB of cache and the WD20EZRZ has 64 MB. But cache is really only a buffer, because both are 5400rpm drives if you put both drives in a task where the cache is full (example: the computer can supply data faster than the drive can write it, causing the computer to slow the rate it is sending) then they would be near to identical. 
Looking at the stats for the drives there is not a big difference in speed or height. The WD20EZRZ is near to identical to the ST2000dm005 in length and width, and is 5.9 mm taller. If your including weight in your meaning of size then yes WD20EZRZ weighs 185 g more than the ST2000dm005.  As minibois pointed out, all that can be explained by the design choices the manufactures made, in the case of the WD it probably has one more platter in it. 
Actually the Seagate ST2000dm006 (2 TB, 7200 RPM, 64 MB cache) sold in a lot of places for the same or near to the same price as the ST2000dm005 model that was out at the time. Comparing the stats of ST2000dm006 to the WD20EZRZ is interesting as they are very close on weight and height, and the ST2000dm006 does have a extra platter than ST2000dm005. Which would suggest the  WD20EZRZ would to.

 

Right now if I walked into a computer store and had to grab one Seagate and one WD drive with the closest specs to your two, in the area I live (global distribution is a tad messed up right now) they would probably be a WD Blue 2TB WD20EZAZ and a 2TB ST2000DM008 for $10 ($6-7 USD) more than the WD. The WD20EZRZ  has been out of production for years now and I have not seen a ST2000dm005 since they started to remove the compute naming off the 2 TB drives. WD20EZAZ (5400rpm, 256 MB cache and on average probably around $10 USD cheaper than the average price of the WD20EZRZ when it came out) is the same height as your WD20EZRZ and weighs near to the same as your ST2000dm005, WD HDD generally are the same height, Seagate drives vary on how much space is needed between two heights of around 2cm and 2.6cm. ST2000DM008 (7200rpm, 256 MB cache) has the same dimensions as the ST2000dm005 and weighs 75g more.

What is your question? The direct answer is because that is what you paid for them. If by "i bought them online" you mean they were second hand and the question is why were they the same price when they are different slightly from each other. Then you would have to ask the seller to get the real answer, at a guess the seller didn't know or care about the differences and priced on age and storage capacity. Are you concerned that you were ripped off in some way? Are you just interested in the differences? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
On 3/25/2020 at 1:21 AM, cobalt77 said:

The reason why the seagate is faster is that the ST2000dm005 has 256 MB of cache and the WD20EZRZ has 64 MB. But cache is really only a buffer, because both are 5400rpm drives if you put both drives in a task where the cache is full (example: the computer can supply data faster than the drive can write it, causing the computer to slow the rate it is sending) then they would be near to identical. 
Looking at the stats for the drives there is not a big difference in speed or height. The WD20EZRZ is near to identical to the ST2000dm005 in length and width, and is 5.9 mm taller. If your including weight in your meaning of size then yes WD20EZRZ weighs 185 g more than the ST2000dm005.  As minibois pointed out, all that can be explained by the design choices the manufactures made, in the case of the WD it probably has one more platter in it. 
Actually the Seagate ST2000dm006 (2 TB, 7200 RPM, 64 MB cache) sold in a lot of places for the same or near to the same price as the ST2000dm005 model that was out at the time. Comparing the stats of ST2000dm006 to the WD20EZRZ is interesting as they are very close on weight and height, and the ST2000dm006 does have a extra platter than ST2000dm005. Which would suggest the  WD20EZRZ would to.

 

Right now if I walked into a computer store and had to grab one Seagate and one WD drive with the closest specs to your two, in the area I live (global distribution is a tad messed up right now) they would probably be a WD Blue 2TB WD20EZAZ and a 2TB ST2000DM008 for $10 ($6-7 USD) more than the WD. The WD20EZRZ  has been out of production for years now and I have not seen a ST2000dm005 since they started to remove the compute naming off the 2 TB drives. WD20EZAZ (5400rpm, 256 MB cache and on average probably around $10 USD cheaper than the average price of the WD20EZRZ when it came out) is the same height as your WD20EZRZ and weighs near to the same as your ST2000dm005, WD HDD generally are the same height, Seagate drives vary on how much space is needed between two heights of around 2cm and 2.6cm. ST2000DM008 (7200rpm, 256 MB cache) has the same dimensions as the ST2000dm005 and weighs 75g more.

What is your question? The direct answer is because that is what you paid for them. If by "i bought them online" you mean they were second hand and the question is why were they the same price when they are different slightly from each other. Then you would have to ask the seller to get the real answer, at a guess the seller didn't know or care about the differences and priced on age and storage capacity. Are you concerned that you were ripped off in some way? Are you just interested in the differences? 

thanks for so much information, i just need to know which one is better in terms of long life ? and which one i need to go for next time i buy a HDD? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yuvraj Mann said:

thanks for so much information, i just need to know which one is better in terms of long life ? and which one i need to go for next time i buy a HDD? 

Are they second hand? If they are then its going to be a guess which one is going to live longer as you don't know the history of the drives. With new or second hand drives it is good practice to download and use a program like CrystalDiskInfo (its free https://crystalmark.info/en/software/crystaldiskinfo/ ) to have a look at the disk health on a regular basis (like once or twice a year) and if you catch a drive failing, transfer the data off it on to another drive and get rid of it.  As for which HDD to buy in relation to buying second hand, buy the one that is a good price, and the seller has done a health check on and came back good (and after you buy do a health check to see if the results are near to the same, people will lie/fake health checks to sell drives) or you know the history of (and has had a low stress life).  

 

So the short answer is: don't know which one will last longer, everything being equal in their past history then they should live about the same time if treated identically. But do test the health. As for future buys, it depends on what is available, the health of the drives, and what you think is a fair price.

That answer your questions? any more/new questions? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×