Toshiba vs Seagate vs WD which HDD should I choose?

[Cygi]

Hello everyone,

I’m looking for a 4TB 3,5” HDD for video and photos, my options are:

-Toshiba p300 (HDWD240UZSVA),

-WD Blue (WD40EZAZ),

-Seagate Barracuda (ST4000DM004)

In my country prices are pretty much the same but I listed them anyway by price from lowest to highest. They’re all 5400 rpm with Toshiba having half the cash of others. From your experience which one is the most reliable? I’ve had one p300 for 4 years so far and it’s been working just fine.

 

Thank you all for answers^^

[Akash Rai]

you can go for a western digital one. Those are quite durable. I have a western digital HDD bought it 3rd hand and it still works as new.

[mariushm]

I would go with the WD drive.... as long as it's same warranty duration as the others. They're probably all 2 years warranty.

 

The only drives that ever failed on me with loss of data were Seagate ones, so I may be a bit biased against them. But just like I'm against Samsung a bit, a lot of people had bad experiences with WD or other brands so just one person's opinion is not something you should rely your choice on.

 

 

 

[Pixelfie]

The WD and Seagate are both good options. I've heard more good things about WD so I would get that. Honestly I forgot Toshiba even existed so idk how good that drive is

[Harlan]

I'd avoid Seagate, for mechanical I'd go with WD as well.

 

I had a 4TB drive die on me from Seagate before.

[Akash Rai]

Or do the best ask the shopkeeper which drives are the most durable ones if you trust them. Because the performance and quality might vary from country to country.

[mariushm]

26 minutes ago, Amelia 1 said:

....

Sounds like you copy pasted an article from a website... though it's mostly correct, so no harm done. 

Note that they're already at 20 TB drives, not 14 TB. 

 

Also, I have a problem with the line saying that you must have 7200 rpm or that it's best to get a drive that's 7200rpm ...

High rpm only matters for latency, when you're seeking data on drives. if someone needs fast access to data, they can go with a SSD which is several orders of magnitude faster. 

Performance is a mix of rpm, data density and number of heads - you could have a 4 TB 7200 rpm drive that's slower than a 5400-5900 rpm 4 TB drive, if the first one has more platters or older generation platters  (ex 4 platters and 8 heads, 500 GB per surface  vs 4 TB in 2 platters and 4 heads, 1 TB per surface) 

 

Personally, I think the best indicator is the warranty the manufacturer is willing to give. 

I've had drives from Seagate and WD and the drives with 3 or more years warranty have lasted much longer.  

I now have NAS grade drives with at least 3 years warranty in my system. I still have a 1 TB WD Black which initially had 5 years warranty - started to develop some bad sectors after 50-60k hours of operation and it's still working in my system to this day.

But.. when it comes to drives with 2 years warranty...  had a Seagate 2 TB drive that died on me at 2 years and around 3 weeks, with almost no SMART notification and a WD Green 2 TB started to get bad sectors at 1 year and 11 months mark and sent it to warranty and got a new drive.

 

It is a balance though... I wouldn't buy a WD Black drive instead of a WD Red Plus for example (what I bought last) because the price difference isn't justified, if all you need the drive for is storage... you can almost buy TWO drives for the price you'd pay for the WD Black, and you could keep that 2nd drive as a hot spare in case first fails.

 

[Cygi]

I went with a WD drive, thank you all for opinions!