Seagate vs. WD

Let's settle this once and for all.

SEAGATE OR WESTERN DIGITAL?

I'm going to make a build and I want a longlasting and realiable 1TB HDD. I don't want to fall for memes, so I want real arguments here.

Other urls found in this thread:

seagate.com/www-content/product-content/barracuda-senpai/barracuda-new/en-us/docs/100804187a.pdf
products.wdc.com/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771436.pdf
pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/qual/features_Head.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>2017
>spinning media

Toshiba

I literally bursted out laughing, can I get a serious reply now?

I have had a collection of both and from my small sample size I say that seagate hdds are fragile as you get.
Seagates are fine if you never physically touch them or do some risking tampering with them.

That being said I've never actually gone out and bought a hdd like some pleb. Every hdd I've ever gotten has been ripped out from a pc or laptop.

What do you mean tampering? Also I don't really physically touch them as I have them in my desktop pc.

WD or you can just google

Maxtor seriously. I got one thats over 15 years old and still work. Never lost any data ever.

I googled it, but basically it's about people supporting the backblaze meme and others debunking it. Nothing really conclusive.

Not every guy/girl is rich, kid.

I've been using Seagate drives since 2007 and never had any issues with them. My oldest one from my 2007 desktop computer is on backup sectors now, but it still works and will probably still work in 10 years (I'm using it as a backup drive now).
A necessarity. I'm not rich and therefore can't afford 16 TB+ SSD space. SSDs don't really have any benefits for video storaging. 95 % of my files are videos.

I don't run HDDs in my primary computer anymore, I even use SSDs for caching, but HDDs work for storing masses of files.

Both are good, least from my own experience. Got a WD 160GB running fine as desktop system drive since maybe 2008/10. Got a 1.5TB seagate in same system since 2014. My server uses all seagate drives of various service life. All still pass smart tests with zero red flags. 4 3TB, 2 2TB and one 1TB drive.

>Seagate or WD
Neither, get HGST.

HGST. But reliance on a single drive has been busted since forever and this remains unchanged. You need redundancy even for basic data safety.

BTW, I run two 2 TB enterprise, one 1.5 TB portable/9.5 and one 4 TB desktop. I'll buy a 8 or 10 TB IronWolf soon and start to migrate files on a single drive. 4K is becoming a thing and I will soon have a better internet connection, I'm used to slowload movies with my DSL 2000 connection. My drives are almost full. Another Star Trek series in 1080p and the last 500 GB are gone. Now imagine a 4K series...

Short stroking

Also got a 80GB WD ide drive in my old gaming system I built back in the day. She still fires right up. Most time though she sits in storage. I think the thing that really shortens drive life spans is heat, the more drives you add, the more heat gets generated. So keeping them cool is a must. 60c is max operating temp for Seagate drives.

>backblaze meme
So statistics from a datacenter is now a 'meme'?

old Samsumg hard drives

When you run consumer grade 3TB multiplatter drives on a 50ºC high vibration 24/7 enviroment, yes.

Seconding this, not even because meme charts, rather personal experience. HGST drives, in my experience last longer and are overall more snappy than WD or Seagate drive of similar specs.

PS: By basic I mean basic. You want a minimum of two copies.

Three or more verified, independent copies are common for data that "can't" be lost. Might also easily be a history of j
a hundred versions staggered back for five years in four copies, though.

More drives. That said, 4k is gimmicky and somewhat pointless. Sure, if you have a huge display and/or really want to see every eyelash individually...? But it usually does little. 8k too.

Are the worst drives I ever had. My ~ 2008 Samsung 500 GB drive ran on my old Z77 platform without problems, but when I switched to X99 it started to click, slowed down the system and wasn't accessible anymore. It completely died out. This happens when you plug these shitdrives into SATA3 ports (my new mb only has these).

My experience agrees with the overall reliability but disagrees with the snappiness. WD and seagate are easily equally good on the high end drives.

Its a difference. I own a 4K TV now and don't watch TV with it, I get all my content from the internet, mostly BluRay rips. Most of my content is 1080p though, it still needs a lot of space. 25-50 GB per movie, 300-500 GB for a series depending on the number of episodes.

Having any virgin storage device in the first place, and not typing 1 and 0 by hand directly into RAM every time you power up your pc.

>Toshiba

>Maxtor

>Samsumg

Made me remember there used to be competition in hard drive sector? Why is the industry concentrated around only 2 players now?

Yeah 4K is kinda pointless. Unless you like sitting very close to the tv, which only causes eye strain. Or if you got a big ass jumbo screen suitable for a concert hall or similar. I'm happy with my 65" tv. I don't need bigger. My living room ain't gonna grow anytime soon.

I'm personally using a 4TB HGST on my server, has been working well. Stuck on there with double sided tape.

More copies is never bad. This is how mine works now: (Server is connected to UPS)
1. Client pc's get backed up once a day to the Server.
2. Server Data + Client Backups + Server Sys Image is backed up to pair of Nas units. Backups are split between them due to size of data.
3. Core server data + client backups/server sys image is backed up again to a 3TB usb external drive.

Early next year I plan to get a 12TB drive and mount it in a external usb 3 enclosure so I can backup the entire server so I'd have a 2nd complete copy of everything.

>bursted
refrain from adding your retarded opinions to this thread pls brainlet-user

So what's the best WD color? Gold?

To me, 4k and 8k ismainly a gpu heater and store space waste. Yes yes, you have that many more pixels, but it usually 'does' nothing for me even on a pretty big screen. And I don't intend to use a huge one any time soon.

Yes, basically. Whether they are worth it is more than a little uncertain in a home setting, though.

I get that gold>red pro>black>blue>red, but what about purple?

I got two ordinary 2TB Seagates and put them in raid0 mode. Combined they were about as expensive as 1 WD 2TB Black, but I'm sure I have better reliability now and the read speed is pretty damn awesome too.

>but I'm sure I have better reliability now
>raid0
>better reliability
kek

Fuck, I meant mirroring. I keep fucking up the numbers with that.

this

both my samsung drives still work and both have over 25000 hours of use
please give us samsung back or i will be forced to buy seagate

well ive only got wd drives myself (aside from my ssd's, why would you go wd for ssd?) and theyre alright. i worry about them failing though because theyre nearing 5 years old.

I don't know for purples. They never seemed attractive to buy here.

Also I don't think reds are worse than blues.

Fpbp
/thread

>please give us samsung back or i will be forced to buy seagate
Huh? Yea, just buy seagate, 8TB+ should be pretty normal again.

For standalone home use you're best of taking black. Gold and red are Datacenter and NAS material, so more oriented on continuous 24/7 use. Blue is just a good old HD and I thought purple was surveillance shit? So constantly writing, but not exactly performance oriented?

A WD gold in regular computer usage will last up to 15 years.

>A WD gold in regular computer usage will last up to 15 years.
yet the drives havent even been on the market that long. hmmm

>wd blue start/stop cycle rating: 300.000
>seagate barracuda start/stop cycle rating: 50.000

WD is objectively more reliable.

source? also why are you stopping your hard drive so often?

It's called turning off your computer when you go to sleep like a normal person.

seagate.com/www-content/product-content/barracuda-senpai/barracuda-new/en-us/docs/100804187a.pdf
page 10

products.wdc.com/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771436.pdf
page 3

>It's called turning off your computer when you go to sleep like a normal person.
50,000 times bro. both drives tend to fail after 5 years of use. also your link 404's

It 404s because of the funny memester 4chinks filter, remove "senpai" and put "f.am" without the "."

>50,000 times bro. both drives tend to fail after 5 years of use.

Isn't 300.000 better than 50.000? Yep. Also load/unload technology is simply better than start/stop technology.

pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/qual/features_Head.htm

of course its better, but from the benchmarsk done it looks like they tend to fail around the same times. im only wd for my drives so im no shill but they dont seem any more reliable

wd green stops after a certain amount of inactivity period.

dont all hard drives? wd green arent even made anymore because they were so shit

reds never stop spinning for quicker response time and are classified as 'NAS drives'.

well yes, but so do backs and you can make blues keep spinning. its just redds are """""""""""""rated""""""""""""" for it.

HGST

WD or HGST. I have 2 WD Blue 1TB (7200) drives that serve me well for 5 years already.

>he doesn't reboot his computer 400 times a day on average to avoid windows bitrot

NORMIES FUCKING LEAVE

i have one pre wd hgst drive. thing is great, shame they werent popular

well hgst is wd now but if you can get an unused hgst thats not wd go for it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...windows

Seagate for 3.5 inchers
WD for 2.5 inchers

arguments?

WD 2.5 are cheaper
SG 3.5 are cheaper

I literally dropped a plate in the vicinity of my pc literally like not even close to it, and it killed a Seagate. Go WD.

i have some old seagate drives which i took out of some sky tv boxes which someone left near their bins. i have accumulated some of these over the years had 3 in my setup with no problems. also have had a wd caviar green 2tb for about 5 years and had no problems with it get whatever user.

>1tb
really??

how are you powering that??

HGST

Toshiba really is good, they got HGST's 3.5" plant when WD bought them and I've got a few of their 1 and 1.5TB drives with ~15000 hours each and they're still working flawlessly.

>Need more then double redundency
Really? If I'm hoarding movies/weebshit do I really need to back it up more then 1 live Hard Drive and 1 offline Hard Drive I keep turned off?

if you care about reliability or protecting your data:
>hgst
>western digital
>seagate

if you care about your shekels and see nothing wrong with shopping at harbor freight for every tool you own the just flip the list upside down and throw toshiba into the mix between seagate and western digital.

With a standard PSU, and the NUC PC underneath with it's included power supply.

Never had any significant issues with any of the Seagate I own
My toshiba is also working just fine

oh so you have the standard psu just for hdd power??

I have 3 Toshiba's. 2 x 6Tb and 1 x 5TB. Working flawlessly.

Yes, unfortunately the included SATA power cable isn't strong enough for a 3.5" drive, it's only enough for 2.5" drives. But I had one laying around so it's not that big of a deal.

do you really store thousand of movies on expensive SSD storage?
that's pretty retarded user

kek

Toshiba.

>not just running your whole OS out of a chink pen drive

>if you care about reliability or protecting your data:
Backups faggit!

>realibility
Nice meme OP, learn2raid0

>WD
Internal
>seagate
External

>protip: use external drives as little as possible

I have a seagate barracuda that clicks and rattles but is over 5 years old and still works. I also have 3 wd blues that all work, 2 are new but one is 2 years old. Ive never really have have drive issues my entire life of using computers

Ghetto ass shit.

works on my machine