WD Black 1TB 7,200 RPM vs Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7,200

[Textosterone]

what one is better? I just lost my segate after like 5 years i need a new one. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Dank memes

[Opeth747]

WD.

[TheGeeker]

Wd black for sure. @Captain_WD

[Captain_WD]

~snip~

 

Hey there Textosterone, 

 

WD Black is a great performance drive that features very good speeds, enhanced durability, a dual-core CPU taht enables the drive to handle caching and multitasking much better and efficient and a good 5-year long limiter warranty.

What do you need the drive for? 

 

Thanks @TheGeeker for mentioning.

 

Captain_WD.

[TheGeeker]

 

Hey there Textosterone, 

 

WD Black is a great performance drive that features very good speeds, enhanced durability, a dual-core CPU taht enables the drive to handle caching and multitasking much better and efficient and a good 5-year long limiter warranty.

What do you need the drive for? 

 

Thanks @TheGeeker for mentioning.

 

Captain_WD.

 

No problem. @Captain_WD

Side note: What drive would you recommend for a network file transfer system such as btsync? Not sure if performance or reliability is key. 

[Captain_WD]

No problem. @Captain_WD

Side note: What drive would you recommend for a network file transfer system such as btsync? Not sure if performance or reliability is key. 

 

Well, you would need a drive that is somewhat optimized for continuous workloads and designed for a NAS/server. I would say you should check out WD Red for this, although it really depends on the specific usage. If you are streaming/downloading on a regular build and it's not on 24/7 WD Black might also do the job as it's also designed for longer and more demanding workloads, deliver better speeds than WD Red, but it's not the best for server. I'd say either of these two should do the job. Regarding the reliability, I would consider a backup solution or some level of redundancy (RAID which means you should use WD Red for better reliability). Here are links to the drives:

WD Black: http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=7ixdT5

WD Red: http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=2nPsAE

 

Captain_WD.

[kameshss]

WD ftw man! They are super reliable.

 

Don't buy Seagate. You don't wanna RMA frequently.

[scottyseng]

I'm biased towards WD because all of my Hard Drives are WD. I have one WD 1TB black that's 8 years old that's on caution, so that's being replaced. But a solid track record and good customer service keeps me happy with WD stuff.

[ddswh1pk0s]

I'm pretty biased to WD since I have a WD blue and WD green, really great drives! The WD black has great performance so you should get that.

[Textosterone]

 

Hey there Textosterone, 

 

WD Black is a great performance drive that features very good speeds, enhanced durability, a dual-core CPU taht enables the drive to handle caching and multitasking much better and efficient and a good 5-year long limiter warranty.

What do you need the drive for? 

 

Thanks @TheGeeker for mentioning.

 

Captain_WD.

 

just.. everything but OS i have my OS on my ssd.

[Textosterone]

@captain_WD what about WD black vs WD blue?

[Textosterone]

 

Well, you would need a drive that is somewhat optimized for continuous workloads and designed for a NAS/server. I would say you should check out WD Red for this, although it really depends on the specific usage. If you are streaming/downloading on a regular build and it's not on 24/7 WD Black might also do the job as it's also designed for longer and more demanding workloads, deliver better speeds than WD Red, but it's not the best for server. I'd say either of these two should do the job. Regarding the reliability, I would consider a backup solution or some level of redundancy (RAID which means you should use WD Red for better reliability). Here are links to the drives:

WD Black: http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=7ixdT5

WD Red: http://products.wdc.com/support/kb.ashx?id=2nPsAE

 

Captain_WD.

 

what about WD Black vs WD blue?

[Captain_WD]

what about WD Black vs WD blue?

 

The 1TB version of both drives may be considered close in performance for everyday usage. Generally WD Black should provide higher transfer speeds and shorter seek times, has longer warranty, handles heavier and longer workloads much better and has a built-in dual-core CPU that helps it manage the caching processes better, thus improving the multitasking ability of the drive. For performance and durability, I would go with WD Black. For simple computing and more budget-friendly drive - I would go for WD Blue. Both drive should handle most things pretty well. 

 

Captain_WD.

[ictdude1]

western digital, the barracudas are ok but i hear and see to many of them fail to want to trust them with my data (although you have to remember that all hard drives will fail at some point so you always need a backup) as for the WD black they are also very fast hard drives, mine loads games extremely quick for a mechanical hard drive 

[Nicholas0628]

I've read through reviews on Newegg for both, and they seem to both fail often. I'm a bit hesitant to get either. Should I go ahead and get the WD one and hope for the best, or are there any other HDDs that are reliable? (1TB,SATA3 6gb/s, 7200RPM)

[JaZoN_XD]

@Captain_WD would you EVER recommend a drive other than Western Digital? Also, I find that oddly my Seagate SSHD is doing much better than a WD Black in terms of speed (at least sequential) which I find odd because my drive is like 9% fragmented and I thought that the WD Black is one seriously fast HDD. (I found speeds of the WD Black to compare on PCmags 2013 review but I don't know how much it changed by now)

[Captain_WD]

@Captain_WD would you EVER recommend a drive other than Western Digital? Also, I find that oddly my Seagate SSHD is doing much better than a WD Black in terms of speed (at least sequential) which I find odd because my drive is like 9% fragmented and I thought that the WD Black is one seriously fast HDD. (I found speeds of the WD Black to compare on PCmags 2013 review but I don't know how much it changed by now)

 

As an official Western Digital representative, I can't really recommend other brands' products.

SSHD drives generally work faster than regular drives for things that are stored in the 8GB SSD portion for caching. WD Black is still a regular HDD and only works at regular speeds while SSHDs in general can work much faster with an application if its files are stored on the SSD portion.

 

Captain_WD.

[JaZoN_XD]

As an official Western Digital representative, I can't really recommend other brands' products.

SSHD drives generally work faster than regular drives for things that are stored in the 8GB SSD portion for caching. WD Black is still a regular HDD and only works at regular speeds while SSHDs in general can work much faster with an application if its files are stored on the SSD portion.

Captain_WD.

Okay, so do synthetic benchmarks such as CrystalDisk and AS SSD cause files to be cached to the SSD portion of the SSHD? (At least for sequential reads/writes) I find that my sequential reads and writes are about 180/150 and those seem to be about the speed of an HDD, not a cheap SSD.

[scottyseng]

Okay, so do synthetic benchmarks such as CrystalDisk and AS SSD cause files to be cached to the SSD portion of the SSHD? (At least for sequential reads/writes) I find that my sequential reads and writes are about 180/150 and those seem to be about the speed of an HDD, not a cheap SSD.

 

Curious, what settings are you using for CrystalDisk Mark? 4GiB?

 

But usually SSHDs predict what you are going to use and cache it in the SSD part (The prediction system is quite good). If it's too big for the SSD though, it'll have to pull from the hard drive.

[JaZoN_XD]

Curious, what settings are you using for CrystalDisk Mark? 4GiB?

 

But usually SSHDs predict what you are going to use and cache it in the SSD part (The prediction system is quite good). If it's too big for the SSD though, it'll have to pull from the hard drive.

for Crystal disk, i do 2000MB with 3 runs with test data at default. Although for AS SSD, I just use the default settings (I don't know what they are but I never changed them) and in 1GB

 

I get about 140~150 reads and usually 190 writes for Crystal Disk and 150 reads and 170 writes for AS SSD

[Metaformed]

WD makes better HDs, Also, beofre you get a Black: check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWD0g43ZoEk

[scottyseng]

for Crystal disk, i do 2000MB with 3 runs with test data at default. Although for AS SSD, I just use the default settings (I don't know what they are but I never changed them) and in 1GB

 

I get about 140~150 reads and usually 190 writes for Crystal Disk and 150 reads and 170 writes for AS SSD

 

That's the 1TB Western Digital Black? Or the Seagate SSHD?

[JaZoN_XD]

That's the 1TB Western Digital Black? Or the Seagate SSHD?

Seagate SSHD.

[JoshB2084]

My WD Black Caviar 640GB HDD still running strongly after almost 7 years. Good jobs WD!!!