WD Black vs. Seagate SSHD

[KenXeiko]

WD2003FZEX ( Western Digital, 2013 ) vs. ST2000DX002 ( Seagate , 2016)

 

I am looking to replace my current hard drive as it is showing symptoms of breaking down. ( High response time, over a thousand MS. )

Please help me choose. I would very much prefer one that is faster. I play games like ArmA 3 which renders a lot and has a long loading screen with my current hard drive , I would get an SSD but currently i don't have the budget to do so, and these 2 are my only choices.

Please do not tell me to go with an HDD + SSD combo or just an SSD, as i am not able to because of my budget, i would need to choose one that would last me long enough and anything that would be more powerful on the long run.

 

Thanks.

[NMS]

While you did ask to not say what I'm about to, I still will because the prices are extremely cheap. You can get a 120GB SSD for Windows for as little as $35 nowadays and a 1TB HDD for storage for about the same price.

 

And those two will be cheaper than your given above choices.

 

But if you are only interested in those, then Western Digital. My Seagate drives all have been very unreliable.

[Jurrunio]

Aren't WD Black SSHDs very expensive?

 

Seagate SSHDs get a tiny SSD part of merely 8GB, which equates to nearly no reallife benefit. Definitely a no go here.

[thisforumsucksassdeletemya]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

Aren't WD Black SSHDs very expensive?

 

Seagate SSHDs get a tiny SSD part of merely 8GB, which equates to nearly no reallife benefit. Definitely a no go here.

I don't think there are western digital caviar black SSHDs... OP was only asking about seagate SSHDs...

 

Last part is just completely wrong. 

[Jurrunio]

1 hour ago, violentnumeric said:

I don't think there are western digital caviar black SSHDs... OP was only asking about seagate SSHDs...

Google threw me there https://support.wdc.com/product.aspx?ID=1901&lang=en

 

@KenXeiko If it's a standard WD Black HDD, then... still better than the Seagate option, just kinda expensive considering it's just a Blue HDD with longer warranty, Performance is exactly the same.

 

1 hour ago, violentnumeric said:

Last part is just completely wrong. 

Be precise. What's wrong?

[seagate_surfer]

Hey OP, regardless of which brand or product you decide feels right for your needs in the end, we do want to say thanks for considering Seagate!

Here is the spec sheet on the 2TB FireCuda, we just wanted to make sure you've got it.

[Biggerboot]

7 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

Seagate SSHDs get a tiny SSD part of merely 8GB, which equates to nearly no reallife benefit. Definitely a no go here.

I would say that depends.  As an OS drive, yeah, probably no benefit.  Granted, I haven't used it myself and this kind of thing is tricky to benchmark, I just know of its feature.

I would say for something like a Steam drive, this could be useful.  It'll 'remember' the game you like playing the most and store it in SSD space, but if you want to keep all your games installed and you have a huge library, it's got the space for that.  

That being said, I don't know how effectively it'll utilize the ssd aspects when it contains your OS and games.  I'm still of the philosophy that you should have dedicated SSDs and HDDs, but there's merit in the drive itself.
 

[Jurrunio]

24 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

I would say that depends.  As an OS drive, yeah, probably no benefit.  Granted, I haven't used it myself and this kind of thing is tricky to benchmark, I just know of its feature.

I would say for something like a Steam drive, this could be useful.  It'll 'remember' the game you like playing the most and store it in SSD space, but if you want to keep all your games installed and you have a huge library, it's got the space for that.  

That being said, I don't know how effectively it'll utilize the ssd aspects when it contains your OS and games.  I'm still of the philosophy that you should have dedicated SSDs and HDDs, but there's merit in the drive itself.
 

SSHDs with small NAND capacity like the Firecuda actually do just fine as boot drives. With only 8GB of fast memory, games just dont load faster because the majority of the data is still in the slow spinning disk. Smaller apps like internet browsers, MS office tools etc will work well with this small memory, though it will 'forget' it if you dont use them often enough.

 

The WD Black SSHD is an example of an SSHD with large NAND capacity, reaching 120GB. Sadly the cost is high and it's phased out from the desktop market at this point because people would rather have a SSD and HDD seperately at this price point (back when they are sold, $100 for 1TB model is common). The last of this type seems to be the WD Black2 Dual Drive, meant for laptops with only 1 2.5" slot. It's still very expensive, more than a 1TB SATA SSD even. I dont see this product surviving much longer either.

[Biggerboot]

13 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

SSHDs with small NAND capacity like the Firecuda actually do just fine as boot drives. With only 8GB of fast memory, games just dont load faster because the majority of the data is still in the slow spinning disk. Smaller apps like internet browsers, MS office tools etc will work well with this small memory, though it will 'forget' it if you dont use them often enough.

 

The WD Black SSHD is an example of an SSHD with large NAND capacity, reaching 120GB. Sadly the cost is high and it's phased out from the desktop market at this point because people would rather have a SSD and HDD seperately at this price point (back when they are sold, $100 for 1TB model is common). The last of this type seems to be the WD Black2 Dual Drive, meant for laptops with only 1 2.5" slot. It's still very expensive, more than a 1TB SATA SSD even. I dont see this product surviving much longer either.

I would think with smaller apps the real world gains would be less noticeable, so it is a bit of a conundrum.  I would like to actually get my hands on one so I can really see if I notice the difference.

[KenXeiko]

9 hours ago, NMS said:

While you did ask to not say what I'm about to, I still will because the prices are extremely cheap. You can get a 120GB SSD for Windows for as little as $35 nowadays and a 1TB HDD for storage for about the same price.

 

And those two will be cheaper than your given above choices.

 

But if you are only interested in those, then Western Digital. My Seagate drives all have been very unreliable.

Not from the US, if i was to get a 1 TB HDD for $35, i would receive a NAS drive or a 5400 RPM used-to-be WD Green Drive which is now Blue. I'm in the Philippines that's why i have very limited options.

 

The SSD + HDD Combo would still be more rational, i know. But as i said things are almost twice as expensive here, So if i ever went with the Combo it will go over $125 which is more than $70.

[Biggerboot]

33 minutes ago, KenXeiko said:

Not from the US, if i was to get a 1 TB HDD for $35, i would receive a NAS drive or a 5400 RPM used-to-be WD Green Drive which is now Blue. I'm in the Philippines that's why i have very limited options.

 

The SSD + HDD Combo would still be more rational, i know. But as i said things are almost twice as expensive here, So if i ever went with the Combo it will go over $125 which is more than $70.

As @Jurrunio said you're not really going to see the difference for loading games on Firecuda.  I'd only consider it then if it's marginally more expensive than a contemporary drive in your area.

[SkilledRebuilds]

On an old piece of garbage PC,...limited to Sata 1,..(150) I saw noteworthy gains just using an SSHD over a standard Mech.

Windows/apps benefit GREATLY,..if not gaming.

 

On modern machines and some testing,.Gaming (EG BF3/4) after a few rounds,...Windows isn't cached anymore,.. but games were much better playing repeated rounds.

I have a 2TB Firecuda and my games are there,.. I also have a Raid0 SSD setup, Warships is on the Raid0 cos it has a much greater benefit than most games do.

Not talking about value,.. but the results are great for my SSHD gaming drive,..and older machines not gaming using Windows,... work great with ample storage.

 

 

[KenXeiko]

1 hour ago, Biggerboot said:

As @Jurrunio said you're not really going to see the difference for loading games on Firecuda.  I'd only consider it then if it's marginally more expensive than a contemporary drive in your area.

the WD Black is at least $15 more expensive than the Firecuda, should i get the Firecuda instead or is the extra $15 worth it? I would get the Black if it will last much longer than the Firecuda.

1 hour ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

On an old piece of garbage PC,...limited to Sata 1,..(150) I saw noteworthy gains just using an SSHD over a standard Mech.

Windows/apps benefit GREATLY,..if not gaming.

 

On modern machines and some testing,.Gaming (EG BF3/4) after a few rounds,...Windows isn't cached anymore,.. but games were much better playing repeated rounds.

I have a 2TB Firecuda and my games are there,.. I also have a Raid0 SSD setup, Warships is on the Raid0 cos it has a much greater benefit than most games do.

Not talking about value,.. but the results are great for my SSHD gaming drive,..and older machines not gaming using Windows,... work great with ample storage.

 

 

ArmA 3 uses the same map over and over again but it depends, will the SSHD be useful if your playing the same game over and over again?

[Biggerboot]

38 minutes ago, KenXeiko said:

the WD Black is at least $15 more expensive than the Firecuda, should i get the Firecuda instead or is the extra $15 worth it? I would get the Black if it will last much longer than the Firecuda.

ArmA 3 uses the same map over and over again but it depends, will the SSHD be useful if your playing the same game over and over again?

Firecuda offers the same length of warranty as the black.  Blacks fail as often as any hard drive, what matters is the warranty.  I'd actually get whatever's cheaper in this case.