Seagate Barracuda vs IronWolf

[jiyeon]

So I was looking into the possibility of getting a hard drive for mass storage due to my paranoia of wearing out my single 250GB SSD that I've put into my system, which contains everything from the OS to my games. A quick look on Amazon and I come across both Seagate Barracuda and IronWolf drives, and I read into the IronWolf drive and found out it's used for NAS systems, whereas the Barracuda is for consumers.

 

The major differences there are between the two are:

• 1TB Barracuda = £36 / 1TB IronWolf = ££45

• 1TB Barracuda = 7200RPM / 1TB IronWolf = 5900RPM*

• 1TB Barracuda = 210MB/s / 1TB IronWolf = 180MB/s

 

*There's also an IronWolf Pro which is 7200RPM but the minimum is 2TB.

 

In classic fashion, I have some questions:
1. For a normal consumer gamer like me, should I even be considering an IronWolf?

2. Since the IronWolf is for NAS, does this in theory mean it lasts longer and wears less than the Barracuda?
3. Seagate or WD?

[Morgan MLGman]

6 minutes ago, seoz said:

In classic fashion, I have some questions:

1. For a normal consumer gamer like me, should I even be considering an IronWolf?

2. Since the IronWolf is for NAS, does this in theory mean it lasts longer and wears less than the Barracuda?
3. Seagate or WD?

1

1. Not really, it shouldn't make much difference, however from my personal experience with hard drives, Barracudas aren't very durable (at least the 1TB models).
2. Yes, it should last longer on average. Of course it always varies from drive to drive, but in general it's more durable and shock resistant.
3. If you want reliability I'd go with WD, however Barracuda drives offer quite good speeds for the price so if that's your main concern the Barracuda is not a bad option. Not that it would make any difference for your use, especially considering it's only a storage drive, not an OS one. With all that said, I'd recommend looking for a WD drive. WD Blue is a counterpart to Barracudas, WD Red are a counterpart to the IronWolves.

[jiyeon]

5 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

1. Not really, it shouldn't make much difference, however from my personal experience with hard drives, Barracudas aren't very durable (at least the 1TB models).
2. Yes, it should last longer on average. Of course it always varies from drive to drive, but in general it's more durable and shock resistant.
3. If you want reliability I'd go with WD, however Barracuda drives offer quite good speeds for the price so if that's your main concern the Barracuda is not a bad option. Not that it would make any difference for your use, especially considering it's only a storage drive, not an OS one. With all that said, I'd recommend looking for a WD drive. WD Blue is a counterpart to Barracudas, WD Red are a counterpart to the IronWolves.

I want long-term reliability more than anything so I suppose I'll also look into WD Blues and Reds, thanks for the advice!

[Blebekblebek]

It is never recommended to use NAS drive for desktop usage.

The reasons mostly because it's slower and more expensive, if you can afford it go for it.

 

I even use barracuda drive for nas

I no longer buy WD drives since it's been debunked their drives difference only with the firmware

 

I'm not saying I never had failures with seagate, but at this point any brand had same failure rate, specially with 3TB variant.

[jiyeon]

1 minute ago, Blebekblebek said:

It is never recommended to use NAS drive for desktop usage.

The reasons mostly because it's slower and more expensive, if you can afford it go for it.

I get that it can be slower, but I like the durability aspect of NAS drives. I can squeeze out an extra £10 for the IronWolf version.

[Blebekblebek]

I still don't recommend it if you are looking for durability, since it was meant to be always on, I think by turning it off and on constantly would make it wear faster.

[jiyeon]

2 minutes ago, Blebekblebek said:

I still don't recommend it if you are looking for durability, since it was meant to be always on, I think by turning it off and on constantly would make it wear faster.

Valid point, but I usually have my PC on four 8 hours a day with a break in between, so I still wouldn't write it off as wearing it faster.