Seagate vs Western Digital

[Redjo]

Hello guys quick question once again:

I am confused what HDD to buy so its up to you. I am confused, because someone told me that Seagate HDD's are more likely to die or to have issues than WD. 

-  Seagate 2TB 7200rpm 64MB 70€

- Western Digital Green 2TB  5400rpm 32MB 74€

- Western Digital WD Blue 1TB 7200rpm 64MB 45€

OR

- Western Digital WD Re 2TB 7200rpm 128MB 150€

 

[LeapFrogMasterRace]

The brand is mostly preference, I never bought a Seagate myself. If you do go Western Digital go for the blue or black drives (black is faster but louder)

 

[I am an SSD]

The WD Blue please, two of them if you really need two TB

[Hackentosher]

I got a st1000md, it's pretty great, some disk tests I ran awhile back put it at like 150-200MB/s reads and something over 100 on the write.

[Oshino Shinobu]

A lot of people say that Seagate drives have high failure rates, but there's no reliable or valid data to support that claim. 

As for the WD drives, there are some differences between the series. 

For the ones you listed: 

 

Green: Power efficient desktop drive.

Blue: Normal Desktop drive. Green and Blue drives are being grouped into the same (blue) series now. 

Red: NAS/RAID drives. Have additional technology to reduce vibrations, cope well with multiple users accessing them at once and running 24/7. 

 

How much is a 2TB Blue? If it's around the same price as the Seagate Barracuda, then go for the WD Blue. If it's $10+ more, then go for the Barracuda. That would be my choice.  

EDIT: Woops, thought the Re was a typo for WD Red. Re drives are enterprise class drives. Unless it's for a business server/datacentre, they're complete overkill. 

[scottyseng]

Depends...what are you using the drive for? Just plain data storage? I would get the Green. The Reds are good choice too. The Blue would be great as well.

 

The Re is complete overkill and they run really hot (On load for me, 52C...) / loud. I have four...you can definitely tell when they're on. They make my blacks sound quiet. haha.

[Hackentosher]

2 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

A lot of people say that Seagate drives have high failure rates, but there's no reliable or valid data to support that claim. 

As for the WD drives, there are some differences between the series. 

For the ones you listed: 

 

Green: Power efficient desktop drive.

Blue: Normal Desktop drive. Green and Blue drives are being grouped into the same (blue) series now. 

Red: NAS/RAID drives. Have additional technology to reduce vibrations, cope well with multiple users accessing them at once and running 24/7. 

 

How much is a 2TB Blue? If it's around the same price as the Seagate Barracuda, then go for the WD Blue. If it's $10+ more, then go for the Barracuda. That would be my choice.  

I thought it was the 3TB server drives that failed a lot?

[Shoob]

Out of those, the 2TB Seagate is the fastest and is the best deal. If you are going to use it only for storage, the WD Green will be sufficient too, though it's not worth the extra €4.

[Oshino Shinobu]

4 minutes ago, Hackentosher said:

I thought it was the 3TB server drives that failed a lot?

There were some issues (years ago) with the 3TB drives. Since then, the issues have been resolved from what I know. 

Their 2TB (or any others AFAIK) drives have never had any issues like they had with the 3TB drives. People have somehow got it into their head that Seagate has high failure rates. People say Seagate drives have a 30% failure rate due to "research" data from a source that shall not be named because of how awful and unrepresentative it is. 

[Hackentosher]

Just now, Oshino Shinobu said:

There were some issues (years ago) with the 3TB drives. Since then, the issues have been resolved from what I know. 

Their 2TB drives have never had any issues like they had with the 3TB drives. People have somehow got it into their head that Seagate has high failure rates. People say Seagate drives have a 30% failure rate due to "research" data from a source that shall not be named because of how awful and unrepresentative it is. 

Well I've had my 1tb baracuda for awhile and have had no issues with it. My ancient 1tb WD Green is a little loud tho. I should probably get rid of it.

[Asteure]

Honestly I prefer WD. I've owned 3 Seagate HDD's and they all failed within 2/3 years. I have two WD's one that's 4 1/2 years old, and a brand new one and they both run fine with no issues. So due to my experience I'm not going to be buying another Seagate HDD.

[Oshino Shinobu]

Just now, Hackentosher said:

Well I've had my 1tb baracuda for awhile and have had no issues with it. My ancient 1tb WD Green is a little loud tho. I should probably get rid of it.

Yep. A company with 30% failure rates wouldn't have a chance to still be around. I have a 2TB Barracuda that's approaching 3 years without an issue and another that is close to 2 years. 

[Redjo]

From the things i read from you guys till now, one say seagate good other say its bad.....

 

Its all up to me i guess

[Hackentosher]

4 minutes ago, Redjo said:

From the things i read from you guys till now, one say seagate good other say its bad.....

 

Its all up to me i guess

Seagate is fine, and last time I checked, the ST1000MD is cheaper than the WD black for just about equal performance.

[Coaxialgamer]

I personnally like seagate a lot . My current hdd ( 3tb , 7200rpm) was extremely fast also ( i got lucky , i got ~215Mb/s in read/write.) 

[Nemmarith]

Personally i'm not going to buy any Seagate HDD in the foreseeable future and here is why.

 

1. For all the HDD brands i use the Seagate branded disks are the only ones that failed the most and without any warning and i'm very protective of my drives. ( For example i never walk around with a HDD based laptop when turned on ) 
2. Where i life (Netherlands) Seagate only gives there consumer harddisks one year warranty, Like they don't trust them ether (lol)  And all the drives failed just after the one year warranty.  Okay i've had a WD-GREEN harddisk that became really slow in transfer speeds and got that replaced after 2.5 years onder warranty. 
3. I have had a Synology NAS running with 4 Seagate 3TB Hard Disks and i'm down to 1 remaining Seagate disk (Replaced them with WD-RED/GREEN) in the other Synology nas that i bought one month after the first one (with 4 WD-RED disk) is still running strong without any problems after 3.5 years 
4. My Desktop computer has a Western Digital 2 TB hard disk and its now 5 years old and has a stop/start count of 10135 and power on of 22950. (Have 2 backups for safety)  i had a 1 TB Seagate drive as well but it died. 

Just my personal experience with Seagate and Western-Digital. The odds of being lucky with the amount of disk i have used in all of my computer build its just not plausible.

Of Course I also used Samsung and hitachi hard disk in the past and never had one fail on me. but i've had more experience with Seagate and WD

[AshleyAshes]

16 hours ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

There were some issues (years ago) with the 3TB drives. Since then, the issues have been resolved from what I know. 

Their 2TB (or any others AFAIK) drives have never had any issues like they had with the 3TB drives. People have somehow got it into their head that Seagate has high failure rates. People say Seagate drives have a 30% failure rate due to "research" data from a source that shall not be named because of how awful and unrepresentative it is. 

I had two 3TB Seagate green's from that era and they both failed at about 18 months.  Meanwhile, my pair of 2TB Seagate greens have literally clocked over 6 years of power up time and are still 'Excellent' in terms of SMART data.  I also have 4TBs and a 5TB that has outlived my 3TBs but they haven't reached 6 years quite yet.

[Starelementpoke]

16 hours ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

There were some issues (years ago) with the 3TB drives. Since then, the issues have been resolved from what I know. 

Their 2TB (or any others AFAIK) drives have never had any issues like they had with the 3TB drives. People have somehow got it into their head that Seagate has high failure rates. People say Seagate drives have a 30% failure rate due to "research" data from a source that shall not be named because of how awful and unrepresentative it is. 

Wait, I thought the 2TB Barracuda drives were the one´s with high failure rates?

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, Starelementpoke said:

Wait, I thought the 2TB Barracuda drives were the one´s with high failure rates?

Nope. None of their drives have high failure rates, with the exception of some 3TB models that had known issues. 

[Starelementpoke]

Just now, Oshino Shinobu said:

Nope. None of their drives have high failure rates, with the exception of some 3TB models that had known issues. 

Huh, well okay then.

[Oshino Shinobu]

6 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

Huh, well okay then.

You may have got the trickle down of misinformation that started from Backblaze. Their "testing" shows Seagate having ridiculous failure rates in 2014, and then a new "test" in 2015 shows that WD has an average of 8% failure rate, which is also ridiculous. Their graphs have led to a load of incorrect information regarding hard drive reliability, particularly about Seagate.