WD Red vs WD Green vs Seagate 3TB Hard Drive Speeds - Page 22 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 6Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 12:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Much better compromise on spindle speed IMO. 5900rpm is tolerable where 5400rpm is not. Evident in the fact the Seagate 4TB uses less power than the 3TB RED per TB and it's quite a bit faster too. Oh- and it's bigger tongue.gif

The WD Red 4TB uses less engergy (4.4W) at rull RPM than the Seagate 4TB at idle (5.0W).

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 12:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post



You mean identical performance in reads and writes... The peformance is not the same on energy, heat or noise. Or cost tongue.gif

The Seagate is much cheaper consistently, and uses much less energy and makes much less heat and noise. Thus my gripe against WD these days.
Good points. biggrin.gif

The newest .15 lines and even the .14 lines usually offer superior performance and sell for lower cost. That's important when choosing a consumer oriented HDD.

A 7200rpm Seagate would easily beat a 7200 WD for the same reasons. It's been consistently among the fastest drives over the last 12 months. It even hangs with the 10k rpm WD drives in important aspects to media and htpc like seq reads and writes.
58% more money ?

lol.

You can buy two Seagates and keep one as a back up for less costs.

Your proving exactly what I hate about this debate. People just favor WD for BS reasons. The warranty is not worth 58% more, and nothing in the older less advanced design with more platters is worth paying more for. In fact- it's worth paying more for a modern drive with fewer platters, faster speeds, and better energy / heat and noise.

We disagree philosophically on this issue.

Where do you get 58% more? The WD Red and the Seagate NAS are the same price.... edit: The Seagate is quite a bit more expensive. If you're talking about the blacks or lack or larger capacities in the blues then you're talking about two completely different philosophies. WD feels that market is dead. So do I. I don't really care about HDD performance because again.... if I want performance I'm going to get a SSD. Why in the hell would I get a HDD for performance? I'm going to get it for data storage. So the most important factor for me is reliability and warranty.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #633 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 1019
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

The WD Red 4TB uses less engergy (4.4W) at rull RPM than the Seagate 4TB at idle (5.0W).

Where did you see that?
How much money do you save per year on electricity ? Is that worth the higher price ? Or the slower performance ?

5.0 versus 4.4 let's look at how important this is:

.06 watts x 24 hours is 1.44 watts per day. That is 525.6 watts per year. That is less than a kilowatt right ? (1000 watts )

I pay about 8 cents for a kilowatt of electricity. So I save about $0.42 cents per year with a WD RED ?

I'd rather save the up front costs on the cheaper Seagate drive and enjoy it's faster performance. biggrin.gif

What does a WD RED cost ? I can buy a Seagate 4TB for $150. At the end of the day comparing two highly efficient hard drives like the WD RED and the SEAGATE 4TB is an effort in futility. There is no real world benefit or difference ever to be realized. Only comparing an energy PIG like a WD BLACK @ 9 watts versus a say something about 5 watts is going to show you anything worthwhile. Once you down to 5 watts or abouts- the small difference from one model to another means nothing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Where do you get 58% more? The WD Red and the Seagate NAS are the same price.... If you're talking about the blacks or lack or larger capacities in the blues then you're talking about two completely different philosophies. WD feels that market is dead. So do I. I don't really care about HDD performance because again.... if I want performance I'm going to get a SSD. Why in the hell would I get a HDD for performance? I'm going to get it for data storage. So the most important factor for me is reliability and warranty.

The review he posted and was quoted in question said 58 percent.
Quote:
With performance being too close to call a clear winner, you need to look at other metrics when making a decision as to which drive is right for you. The strongest thing the WD Black 4TB drive has going for it is the peace of mind that a rather long 5-year warranty. The Seagate Desktop HDD 4TB runs cooler, uses less power and costs 58% less.

So I was just using that number. It does not really matter. The Seagate 4TB is usually cheaper and faster. That's the point.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #634 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
I meant the 3TB comparison not 4TB obviously.... but anyway... I got it from their own spec sheets.

http://www.seagate.com/internal-hard-drives/desktop-hard-drives/desktop-hdd/
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771442.pdf

At full RPM the Seagate is using over 8W. That's almost double the WD Red. Two posts ago you're harping about energy... and now someone says the Seagate uses more and you're all who cares about energy! Which is it?

The 4TB Red isn't available yet afaik but the Seagate 3TB is $164.99 at Newegg right now and the WD Red 3TB is $150.99.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #635 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Sounds like the $99 5.4 watt 7200rpm non NAS version Seagate that does way better speeds is still the winner. I said that about 10 pages ago tongue.gif

Those are idle consumption numbers... rolleyes.gifThat drive uses a little over 9W at full speed if memory serves. Edit: correction it's 8.0W according to their spec sheet.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #636 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:14 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

So what is that supposed to prove?

You asked a question, I provided the answer to your question. If you did not want your question answered, you should not have asked it; you liking or not liking the answer is irrelevant to the answer. If you want, though, you can take it up with Legit Reviews and explain to them why you dislike their findings. As I said, I have no dog in this race, that I was merely answering the question you decided to post on an Internet forum with the findings of a respected site.
cybrsage is offline  
post #637 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Again my point is.... for most people the reliability and warranty matter more than anything else when you're talking about a storage drive. If you want performance, get a SSD. If for some strange reason you want your movie to copy in 3 minutes instead of 3.8 minutes... then go ahead and get the Seagate. But to say they are superior in some way is just flat out unsupportable.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #638 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 1019
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I meant the 3TB comparison not 4TB obviously.... but anyway... I got it from their own spec sheets.

http://www.seagate.com/internal-hard-drives/desktop-hard-drives/desktop-hdd/
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771442.pdf

At full RPM the Seagate is using over 8W. That's almost double the WD Red. Two posts ago you're harping about energy... and now someone says the Seagate uses more and you're all who cares about energy! Which is it?

The 4TB Red isn't available yet afaik but the Seagate 3TB is $164.99 at Newegg right now and the WD Red 3TB is $150.99.

Sounds like the $99 5.4 watt 7200rpm non NAS version Seagate that does way better speeds is still the winner. I said that about 10 pages ago tongue.gif The entire concept about a "NAS" drive is total BS. The design and parts are all sourced from the same places due to economies of scale. They just rebadge them, and use a different firmware. Paying more for a RED or a "NAS" is for a fool. Due to economies of scale and trickle down economics many drives from a MFG tend to share the same parts, design and MFG technology. I've specifically asked WD via email what is different internally between a RED and a GREEN drive and if they use different parts and all I got in response was a BS fluff answer.

I'd love to see some science or some facts to see my opinion is wrong on this if anyone has some. Until then I believe "NAS" "RED" is clever marketing with minor tweaks and not really much different than the non NAS or non RED models.

Remember the study showing enterprise HDDs and consumer HDD's with about the same reliability ? This is similar IMO. I think they have more in common than they do different, and the reliability and performance is relatively the same. Paying more seems silly to me.

Has it been proven that RED is more reliable ? Or NAS is more reliable ? Is there anything concrete to justify the higher price other than the warranty provided ? Any specific difference in internal parts ? or MFG design ?

I don't think so.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #639 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

You asked a question, I provided the answer to your question. If you did not want your question answered, you should not have asked it; you liking or not liking the answer is irrelevant to the answer. If you want, though, you can take it up with Legit Reviews and explain to them why you dislike their findings. As I said, I have no dog in this race, that I was merely answering the question you decided to post on an Internet forum with the findings of a respected site.

Banana hammock could be an answer to my question. I'm saying the article says nothing meaningful.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #640 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 1019
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Again my point is.... for most people the reliability and warranty matter more than anything else when you're talking about a storage drive. If you want performance, get a SSD. If for some strange reason you want your movie to copy in 3 minutes instead of 3.8 minutes... then go ahead and get the Seagate. But to say they are superior in some way is just flat out unsupportable.

My point is that reliability is a figment of the imagination and it's total BS. RED is not more reliable than most other HDD's. I believe it's very similar to GREEN and most other HDD's in general. There is not a huge difference to justify the extra cost, and it's mostly BS.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #641 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:19 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Banana hammock could be an answer to my question. I'm saying the article says nothing meaningful.

Now you are being stupid on purpose. Stop that unless you want people to start treating you as stupid as you are currently acting.

You very specifically asked "Seriously... you're still saying Seagate are superior to WD... based on what?" and I very specifically answered it via Legit Review's findings of "Legit Bottom Line: If you are looking for a 4TB hard drive for secondary storage, the Seagate Desktop HDD.15 offers the right mix of value and performance!"


From what I can tell, you wanted the findings to be different and are now acting stupid on purpose. If you really want to be treated as stupid as you are currently acting, then by all means continue to act stupid. It will not take long before everyone believes you really are that stupid.

EDIT: To recap: Performance is basically the same between them, power usage is basically the same between them. The differences are warranty length (WD wins) and price (Seagate wins). They determined the difference in price overwhelmed the warranty difference and awarded the win to Seagate.
cybrsage is offline  
post #642 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Sounds like the $99 5.4 watt 7200rpm non NAS version Seagate that does way better speeds is still the winner. I said that about 10 pages ago tongue.gif The entire concept about a "NAS" drive is total BS. The design and parts are all sourced from the same places due to economies of scale. They just rebadge them, and use a different firmware. Paying more for a RED or a "NAS" is for a fool. Due to economies of scale and trickle down economics many drives from a MFG tend to share the same parts, design and MFG technology. I've specifically asked WD via email what is different internally between a RED and a GREEN drive and if they use different parts and all I got in response was a BS fluff answer.

I'd love to see some science or some facts to see my opinion is wrong on this if anyone has some. Until then I believe "NAS" "RED" is clever marketing with minor tweaks and not really much different than the non NAS or non RED models.

Remember the study showing enterprise HDDs and consumer HDD's with about the same reliability ? This is similar IMO. I think they have more in common than they do different, and the reliability and performance is relatively the same. Paying more seems silly to me.

Has it been proven that RED is more reliable ? Or NAS is more reliable ? Is there anything concrete to justify the higher price other than the warranty provided ? Any specific difference in internal parts ? or MFG design ?

I don't think so.

As I already said the public data isn't available but I have a significantly higher return rate for failed Seagate drives and so far a 0 return rate for WD Reds. Which is why I switched to them for my personal storage. And as I already stated they have better RMA processes, use much less energy and run cooler. I am more than willing to pay extra for that but I typically only buy them when they are $89 anyway.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #643 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Now you are being stupid on purpose. Stop that unless you want people to start treating you as stupid as you are currently acting.

You very specifically asked "Seriously... you're still saying Seagate are superior to WD... based on what?" and I very specifically answered it via Legit Review's findings of "Legit Bottom Line: If you are looking for a 4TB hard drive for secondary storage, the Seagate Desktop HDD.15 offers the right mix of value and performance!"


From what I can tell, you wanted the findings to be different and are now acting stupid on purpose. If you really want to be treated as stupid as you are currently acting, then by all means continue to act stupid. It will not take long before everyone believes you really are that stupid.

For the purposes of a media drive (which is what this thread is about) that article has 0 meaningful information aside from cost. It actually said the Black still performed better. So I'm not seeing how it says the Seagate is superior. Cost doesn't make a product inferior or superior. The WD Blacks have the best warranty in the business and the drive they are comparing it to has one of the worst. A lot of people are more comfortable with their data residing on the WD architecture. For those things the cost is worth it for them. For media servers again...... the speed is meaningless so the comparison of the WD Blacks is meaningless as well. The Reds and Greens are a much better value.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #644 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

My point is that reliability is a figment of the imagination and it's total BS. RED is not more reliable than most other HDD's. I believe it's very similar to GREEN and most other HDD's in general. There is not a huge difference to justify the extra cost, and it's mostly BS.

In my experience they have been. So I will pay the extra for that reliability. You have had good experiences with Seagate so you choose them. That's the whole point of my original comment. There is no data to support reliability metrics therefore no one can say which is superior or not. Unless you can provide those metrics you can't say Red is an inferior drive.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #645 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

EDIT: To recap: Performance is basically the same between them, power usage is basically the same between them. The differences are warranty length (WD wins) and price (Seagate wins). They determined the difference in price overwhelmed the warranty difference and awarded the win to Seagate.

You actually recapped this nicely and it proves my point that one isn't superior to the other. Superiority would imply that it's a higher quality product. I don't see how this determines that. You can certainly argue that the Black should be faster given it's price point and the class of drive it claims to be but I would disagree that makes the drive inferior. Is the WD Black a great bang for the buck? Of course not but I don't think that can deem it inferior.

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #646 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:35 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

For the purposes of a media drive (which is what this thread is about) that article has 0 meaningful information aside from cost. It actually said the Black still performed better. So I'm not seeing how it says the Seagate is superior. Cost doesn't make a product inferior or superior. The WD Blacks have the best warranty in the business and the drive they are comparing it to has one of the worst. A lot of people are more comfortable with their data residing on the WD architecture. For those things the cost is worth it for them. For media servers again...... the speed is meaningless so the comparison of the WD Blacks is meaningless as well. The Reds and Greens are a much better value.

Actually, you are incorrect about cost not making a product inferior. A Kia Rio 5 door for $16,000 and a 2 year warranty is superior to a Kia Rio 4 door for $500,000 and a 10 year warranty. the 5 door was superior to the 4 door based on price, since the two cars are almost identical in all other ways. Pricing is a vital part of every product and acting like it is not is just silly.

If you want to argue that warranty is far more important to you than price then do so. Explain why it is more important to you and why cost is less important. There are valid reasons for believing that way...for example, Bill Gates most likely does not care about the cost since he all but uses 100's to blow his nose.
cybrsage is offline  
post #647 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:37 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

You actually recapped this nicely and it proves my point that one isn't superior to the other. Superiority would imply that it's a higher quality product. I don't see how this determines that. You can certainly argue that the Black should be faster given it's price point and the class of drive it claims to be but I would disagree that makes the drive inferior. Is the WD Black a great bang for the buck? Of course not but I don't think that can deem it inferior.

Depends on which meaning of superior is in play, and that could be the issue here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superior?s=t

I am using meaning 2 and you are using meaning 3. Once you drop below meaning 1 (being the most commonly used meaning) the numbers no longer are effective indications of ranking.
cybrsage is offline  
post #648 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 01:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
itznfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Depends on which meaning of superior is in play, and that could be the issue here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superior?s=t

I am using meaning 2 and you are using meaning 3. Once you drop below meaning 1 (being the most commonly used meaning) the numbers no longer are effective indications of ranking.

Interesting. It's kind of what I've been saying though. If performance is much more important to someone than warrant and/or perceived reliability then the Seagate would be superior to that person. Again.... that's really all I was trying to point out is that Mfusick can't really say the Red is an inferior drive from a factual standpoint. There is no data to support that. You would have to take into account someone's feelings before you could come to that conclusion.

Further: What does the drive do? It stores data. Which stores data better.... they both store the data. K... which stores the data better though.... the data is still being stored on both of them!

Running Windows Home Server 2011 Evil Abandoned Edition
itznfb is offline  
post #649 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 02:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nevcairiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,044
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Has it been proven that RED is more reliable ? Or NAS is more reliable ? Is there anything concrete to justify the higher price other than the warranty provided ? Any specific difference in internal parts ? or MFG design ?

I don't think so.

Didn't we cover weeks ago that you also cannot prove the opposite? So your statements are as wrong and unproven as any others.

Please stop trying to state your own opinion as fact and calling anyone elses opinion BS, its just rude, and frankly, its really getting quite annoying.
fibertech likes this.
Nevcairiel is offline  
post #650 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 05:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 1019
I did not say it was fact. I said I believed it personally. I am just as free to believe what I want as anyone else is, and voice my opinion. If you disagree then please feel free provide reasons why. But complaining about my voicing my opinion or anything I do personally is a not at all an argument supporting 5400rpm drives or WD drives.

My opinion will remain that NAS specific labels on hard drives is mostly a marketing ploy to increase margins and gain sales in those growing consumer segment classes by providing and marketing a specific product toward them. There is no significant difference in reliable, technology, parts or features that would distinguish them from similar product families. They are for the most part made side by side with the same parts, and most similar products share MFG technologies, parts and assembly processes with each other due to economies of scale at the MFG level.

I don't believe RED hard drives are more reliable at all. I think they are the same. There is simply nothing wrong with my saying so unless someone wants to post information showing me wrong. In which case I would shut my mouth and apologize. If someone wants to spend $50 for a RED color label, and extra year warranty then by all means go for it.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #651 of 884 Old 08-12-2013, 05:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 1019
This is how you win:



Just bought it with a coupon I got in mail today.



Because the Seagate 3TB was only $99.99 and I needed .01 to get over $100 I bought a pack of pens for work. I needed them anyways.

End result is a $69 Seagate 7200.14 HDD delivered to my door with no shipping. It will be here tomorrow. Staples shipping is awesome! biggrin.gif Local truck from the store just drops it off. eek.gif

I also grabbed one of these last week at Costco:



It was $99 biggrin.gif

I'd be happy to document the process for opening these up so they go back together and can be RMA-ed back (you don't have to put them back together for MFG coverage) for anyone that's interested in seeing. Nothing in this world is easier than removing a Seagate external HDD biggrin.gif If you can't remove it, then you probably can't install a HDD in the first place tongue.gif

So I now have 9TB of storage space to add (three drives) Two I got for $99 at Costco, and a third I just bought today from Staples for $69. I did not need the last one, but deal was good so I acted. biggrin.gif

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #652 of 884 Old 08-13-2013, 06:34 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
There are a bunch of youtube vids on how to open them - and you are right, they are SUPER easy to open. One would think Seagate did that on purpose...
cybrsage is offline  
post #653 of 884 Old 08-13-2013, 08:30 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 22,042
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 973 Post(s)
Liked: 830
I see Newegg has the 3TB Seagates on sale for $110 until the 15th.

I think I might pick up five of them since they have 12 months no interest financing. Then I can swap some 2TB drives out and then swap some 1.5TB drives out. Hopefull they don't sell out before I get a chance to order. I had another $15 off coupon from Newegg somewhere. Hopefully I can use that too.

40TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3
LED DLP
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline  
post #654 of 884 Old 08-13-2013, 09:15 AM
Member
 
mcguidance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

I see Newegg has the 3TB Seagates on sale for $110 until the 15th.

I think I might pick up five of them since they have 12 months no interest financing. Then I can swap some 2TB drives out and then swap some 1.5TB drives out. Hopefull they don't sell out before I get a chance to order. I had another $15 off coupon from Newegg somewhere. Hopefully I can use that too.

Thanks for this, just picked one up. I will open it up and it will serve as part of my build.
mcguidance is offline  
post #655 of 884 Old 08-13-2013, 09:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
aliaskary77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 51
they have the internal for 109 till thursday night with back to school coupon code. just picked up 3 for my shopping spree.

note: the post above is my opinion. as such, when reading any recommendations from me, please do you research and seek out other recommendations and make up your own mind on your next course of action. i mean, most reasonable adults should know that, but it seems this should be stated anyways.
aliaskary77 is offline  
post #656 of 884 Old 08-13-2013, 09:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
EricN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,244
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

5.0 versus 4.4 let's look at how important this is:

.06 watts x 24 hours is 1.44 watts per day. That is 525.6 watts per year. That is less than a kilowatt right ? (1000 watts )

I pay about 8 cents for a kilowatt of electricity. So I save about $0.42 cents per year with a WD RED ?

WTF is measured in "watts per year"? I thought you claimed to be an electricity reseller at one point. The arithmetic is also way off.
EricN is offline  
post #657 of 884 Old 08-13-2013, 11:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 1019
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricN View Post

WTF is measured in "watts per year"? I thought you claimed to be an electricity reseller at one point. The arithmetic is also way off.

I am not trying to measure anything in watts per year.. I am trying to determine how much it costs.

Walk me through it please.

Edit : your right about math. I'm in car but will recalculate later. My decimal needs move over I think. 5 watts for Seagate minus 4.4 watts for RED is .6 watts difference. Not .06.

I'd like too see you walk me through how you would do it.
Quote:
5.0 watts minus 4.4 watts is a .6 watt difference between the two. (Above I said .06 as a typo)

.6 watts X 24 hours is 14.4 watts per day.

14.4 watts per day X 365 days is 5256 watts per year.

5256 watts is 5.256 kilowatts.

I pay $0.08 (8 cents) per Kwh so that is 5.256 x .08 = .042048

like I said above... 42 cents

A modern 5 watt HDD only costs about $3.50 per year in electricity consumed, so I am not sure how much savings you can have by lowering it. (I mean I don't think there is much room or opportunity for saving $ )

5 watts x 24 hours is 120 watts x 365 days = 43,800 watts. (43.8 kilowatts)

If the price of a kwh is 8 cents then 43.8 x .08 = $3.50

If one drive costs $3 a year and another $3.50 a year it is hardly a big determining factor.


The only time it is going to matter is if you have a really efficient drive (like 4 watts) versus a really power hungry drive (like 9 watts) in which case you might be able to save some decent money if your running a fleet of them. Otherwise power consumption is really not a big deal if drives are within a single watt of power of each other it's not going to matter.

Just my opinion.

Let me know if I did this wrong, admittedly I did it quick without much attention to detail. If I am wrong I'd love to know where and why.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #658 of 884 Old 08-13-2013, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
StardogChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 3,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 146
I got 2 x 3TB Seagate last Black Friday for $89.99/ea. I am hoping for the same sale, maybe for 4TB drive this year. I'll swap out my slower 2TB drives.

 

 

StardogChampion is offline  
post #659 of 884 Old 08-13-2013, 11:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,247
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked: 1019
Quote:
Originally Posted by StardogChampion View Post

I got 2 x 3TB Seagate last Black Friday for $89.99/ea. I am hoping for the same sale, maybe for 4TB drive this year. I'll swap out my slower 2TB drives.

Yup I got 5 too back then. I've been buying them since. 4TB for $89 would be ultra sweet biggrin.gif

I also do like you and replace my older smaller drives with bigger ones a few at a time when deals pop up. That way I never have old drives in my server so my risk of drive failure is smaller. (in theory)

This seems to work well for me so far. Age is a big factor in HDD death. I sell my 2Tb GREEN drives on ebay and use the money towards the upgrade. It's cheaper to replace them before they die wink.gif

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #660 of 884 Old 08-13-2013, 01:17 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricN View Post

WTF is measured in "watts per year"?

When trying to find out how long it will take to see your ROI, years is often a useful measure. If one HDD costs $0.42 a year less but costs $4.20 more (as an example), it would take you 10 years to see your ROI. You could do it in months, but years works better.
cybrsage is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off