Barracuda 5400 RPM vs 7200 RPM

[mohkamfer]

I have a little problem on my hands. I went to buy a new Barracuda HDD for my new rig, I asked for a 2TB 7200 RPM one, but when I got home I realized it was a ST2000DM005 which is 5400 RPM, the 7200 RPM model was ST2000DM008/6/2.

 

I could not get a replacement because sadly the packaging was opened. So in order to get the 7200 RPM one I have to sell the one I got by mistake, and buy another one.

 

Question is, is it really worth it? For example, if we compare the ST2000DM005 and the ST2000DM008, the only difference being a 30 MB/s transfer rate difference, a bit lower power consumption and some weight off. I will attach the specs sheet in the attachments section.

3-5-barracudaDS1900-11-1806US-en_US.pdf

[mohkamfer]

Well indeed according to these comparisons here

 

https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Seagate-ST2000DM005-2CW102-2TB-vs-Seagate-Barracuda-2TB-2018/m254375vsm466743

 

https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Seagate-ST2000DM005-2CW102-2TB-vs-Seagate-Barracuda-2TB-2016/m254375vs3897

 

The 7200 RPM one is much faster, but I'm still concerned about whether the faster rotation speed is actually bad for the eventual health of the disk. I heard many problems relating to damaged Seagate disks that have higher rotation speeds.

 

Can anybody throw me any insights, please?

[ToastyBear]

Rotational speed shouldn't be an issue. A lot of faster spinning drives have even better reliability. Their enterprise drives are also 7200RPM. If it significantly improved reliability then servers would always opt for that over the small gains in speed. They also have the same MTBF of 600k hours. I would just go with seagate on those numbers. 

[Giffany]

eh biggest issue i find with seagate as i own 2 of them is they like to squeak and click about some times cause of the APM being trash i always got to force it off in crystal disk info on every power up. but in terms of speed yeah faster could wear down faster but it also depends on overall quality of the drive it self, i have 12 year old 300gig 10k rpm enterprise raptor still going strong after all these years. also depends what using the drive for if the cache size is decent it be bit slow but could do just fine. but if its for more things then yes the 7200 is a must. remember though drives read outside in, so if going to use it for games put games on first or partition it in half then use the first partition for games then second for slower less sensitive games/other. thats all i can provide really.

[RejZoR]

Afaik, up to 3TB, all 3.5" Barracudas are also in 7200 RPM flavor. Beyond that, all are 5400 RPM except Barracuda Pro models which are all 7200 RPM.

 

With 2.5", only 1TB is 7200 RPM, the rest is 5400 RPM.

 

As for performance, speed mostly affects random access times and even that in a relatively small way since both are slow compared to basically any SSD. Sequential speed is mostly dictated by density of stored bits. Reason why 5400 RPM ones in laptops are even slower is because other parts of system are slower and those are 2.5" drives which means the speed on their outer edge is smaller than with 3.5". I think the difference will be relatively minor, you'd have to go with SSD caching method or SSD drive as storage to really make a big difference. But anything helps so 7200 RPM will technically always be faster.

[seagate_surfer]

The SSD caching method makes the RPM irrelevant, if you end up doing so, any drive will work. Here I will leave some literature on how much advantage the RPM represents in an HDD: Choosing High Performance Storage Isn’t Just About RPM | Seagate US

[mohkamfer]

On 1/6/2020 at 7:43 AM, ToastyBear said:

Rotational speed shouldn't be an issue. A lot of faster spinning drives have even better reliability. Their enterprise drives are also 7200RPM. If it significantly improved reliability then servers would always opt for that over the small gains in speed. They also have the same MTBF of 600k hours. I would just go with seagate on those numbers. 

Yeah I think I'll just keep it and not go into the hassle of finding a buyer at a good price.

 

On 1/6/2020 at 10:04 AM, RejZoR said:

Afaik, up to 3TB, all 3.5" Barracudas are also in 7200 RPM flavor. Beyond that, all are 5400 RPM except Barracuda Pro models which are all 7200 RPM.

 

With 2.5", only 1TB is 7200 RPM, the rest is 5400 RPM.

 

As for performance, speed mostly affects random access times and even that in a relatively small way since both are slow compared to basically any SSD. Sequential speed is mostly dictated by density of stored bits. Reason why 5400 RPM ones in laptops are even slower is because other parts of system are slower and those are 2.5" drives which means the speed on their outer edge is smaller than with 3.5". I think the difference will be relatively minor, you'd have to go with SSD caching method or SSD drive as storage to really make a big difference. But anything helps so 7200 RPM will technically always be faster.

 

On 1/6/2020 at 9:59 PM, seagate_surfer said:

The SSD caching method makes the RPM irrelevant, if you end up doing so, any drive will work. Here I will leave some literature on how much advantage the RPM represents in an HDD: Choosing High Performance Storage Isn’t Just About RPM | Seagate US

Do I need a FireCuda to enable the SSD caching method? Or it will work on that 2TB 5425 RPM model that I have? (I also fancy how CDI reports it's 5425 :D)

[seagate_surfer]

16 hours ago, mohkamfer said:

Do I need a FireCuda to enable the SSD caching method? Or it will work on that 2TB 5425 RPM model that I have? (I also fancy how CDI reports it's 5425 :D)

No you don´t, SSD caching can be done in several ways, Intel Optane, StoreMI, PrimoCache. I suggest you Primo because it is not limited to its own platform and you can literally use any SSD with any HDD.

[nick name]

26 minutes ago, seagate_surfer said:

No you don´t, SSD caching can be done in several ways, Intel Optane, StoreMI, PrimoCache. I suggest you Primo because it is not limited to its own platform and you can literally use any SSD with any HDD.

You could even find a cheap Optane drive (16GB or 32GB) on eBay and use that with PrimoCache.  And I don't know if it's been fixed, but when I used StoreMI there wasn't a non-destructive way to uninstall StoreMI.  If you weren't happy with StoreMI you were going to loose your data when uninstalling it.  PrimoCache did not have this problem.  

[seagate_surfer]

It depends on the method, for example, with Intel Optane you can uninstall the software (or deconcatenate like Intel says) and use the HDD and SSD separately, but if you use the HDD in another system without taking the Optane module with you then that HDD will be bricked and the only way to reusing it would be formatting it "destroying" the data in it.