Seagate Firecuda vs WD black for gaming

[longislandman99]

what do you guys thinks about Seagate firecuda 1tb vs WD Black 1tb?

[Oshino Shinobu]

SSHDs are a waste of money IMO. So is the WD IMO. Between them, I'd choose a WD Black, primarily for the long warranty. There would be very little difference in loading times unless you only ever run a single game and that's all you use the drive for. In that case, the SSD cache on the Firecuda would be faster, but if you use it normally, it won't make much, or any, difference for games and you'd be better off with the higher RPMs on the black. 

[gr82banautiger]

For gaming, I'd go with SSD or nvme if it's an option.  For mass storage, I like WD Black or Toshiba over Seagate, but it's more of a personal preference

[longislandman99]

yeah it was just for game storage they are the same price for a 1tb

[gr82banautiger]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

SSHDs are a waste of money IMO. So is the WD IMO. Between them, I'd choose a WD Black, primarily for the long warranty. There would be very little difference in loading times unless you only ever run a single game and that's all you use the drive for. In that case, the SSD cache on the Firecuda would be faster, but if you use it normally, it won't make much, or any, difference for games and you'd be better off with the higher RPMs on the black. 

True, that what we're talking about here is a few seconds load time, so depends on how much you have to spend

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, gr82banautiger said:

I'd go with SSD or nvme if it's an option

NVMe is a waste of money for gaming, it loads in the same time as a regular SATA SSD. 

[longislandman99]

how good are the toshiba p300 tho don't really hear about that in tech reviews or tech channels?

[gr82banautiger]

Just now, Oshino Shinobu said:

NVMe is a waste of money for gaming, it loads in the same time as a regular SATA SSD. 

NvME isn't really much more expensive than SSD now actually, and the performance is considerably better, though if you're not using it for a boot drive then we're talking about a few seconds here or there, so I guess it just depends on whether 20-40 USD is a budget buster for you.

[Oshino Shinobu]

2 minutes ago, longislandman99 said:

how good are the toshiba p300 tho don't really hear about that in tech reviews or tech channels?

They're solid drives. Comparable to Seagate Barracudas and WD Blue (7200RPM models). Any of those three would be solid choices. 

 

Still, an SSD is desirable, even if it's just a small one for your favourite games. There won't really be much difference in load times between HDDs, while an SSD would make a massive difference. 

 

 

[Gikero]

7 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

SSHDs are a waste of money IMO. So is the WD IMO. Between them, I'd choose a WD Black, primarily for the long warranty. There would be very little difference in loading times unless you only ever run a single game and that's all you use the drive for. In that case, the SSD cache on the Firecuda would be faster, but if you use it normally, it won't make much, or any, difference for games and you'd be better off with the higher RPMs on the black. 

I'd normally completely agree. However the desktop Firecuda(s) also have a 5 year warranty, 7200RPM and 64MBs cache. I've been looking into upgrading my dual 1TB WD Black drives to 2TB and looked into the differences. Just putting it out there in case it is helpful.

[Oshino Shinobu]

3 minutes ago, gr82banautiger said:

NvME isn't really much more expensive than SSD now actually, and the performance is considerably better, though if you're not using it for a boot drive then we're talking about a few seconds here or there, so I guess it just depends on whether 20-40 USD is a budget buster for you.

It's considerably faster on paper and for some sequential read/write use cases. They don't make much of a difference for booting and OS use either. They're great as scratch drives though. 

 

If it's being used for games mainly, or even if it's booting, $40 could be the difference between affording a 120GB or a 240GB drive. I'd take a 240GB SATA drive over a 120GB NVMe drive for OS and games any day. That really depends on budget though

[Oshino Shinobu]

Just now, Gikero said:

I'd normally completely agree. However the desktop Firecuda(s) also have a 5 year warranty, 7200RPM and 64MBs cache. I've been looking into upgrading my dual 1TB WD Black drives to 2TB and looked into the differences. Just putting it out there in case it is helpful.

Do they? My mistake then, I thought they had 2 years. 

 

Still, SSHDs still seem like a waste of money to me. A cheaper 1TB drive and a 64GB SSD using Intel RST makes more sense to me. 

[Gikero]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Do they? My mistake then, I thought they had 2 years. 

 

Still, SSHDs still seem like a waste of money to me. A cheaper 1TB drive and a 64GB SSD using Intel RST makes more sense to me. 

I think they had a older line that was 2-3 years. I figured if a Firecuda was equal to a WD Black 90% of the time and then occasionally faster, it might be worth it. I haven't bought one, as I am still considering all my options at this point.

I do agree with the HDD + 64GB iRST cache solution. Not sure if OP as that option though. =/

 

2 minutes ago, Julian2000nl said:

WD however, the only experience I had with it was a broken WD Blue in a PC I repaired. Obviously replaced it with a Seagate.

I've had your experience with WD as my primary and Seagate as my secondary. It was years ago and I am probably comparing a higher tier WD to a lower tier Seagate. These days, I look at a drive's warranty period first. If it is less than 5 years, I ignore it. All drives will fail, I just want some expectation that it will last me at least a few years.

[Gikero]

2 minutes ago, ImHyperstyle said:

http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Seagate-Barracuda-720014-1TB-vs-WD-Black-1TB-2013/1849vs1822

Barracuda vs a 2013 WD Black. He was asking about Firecuda.

[longislandman99]

yeah i was looking at the firecuda not the barracuda. i am gonna be running it on a ryzen build so i cant to the optain

[demonix00]

1 hour ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

you'd be better off with the higher RPMs on the black. 

The 3.5" firecuda drives are 7200RPM, only the 2.5" firecuda drives are 5400RPM.

[Oshino Shinobu]

Just now, demonix00 said:

The 3.5" firecuda drives are 7200RPM, only the 2.5" firecuda drives are 5400RPM.

Ah, yeah, that's my bad. Was thinking of the 10,000RPM Velociraptor on that. 

[Ryujin2003]

From my experience, star way from SSHDs. Might higher fail rate. And you really lose the ability for DIY data recovery because the driver STOPS working completely if the SSD had a failure. If rather suggest a small SSD and a separate mechanical drive.

 

I like my WD Black, and would recommend it so day. If you can find another Seagate drive at 7200RPM, awesome!