WD Red vs WD Green vs Seagate 3TB Hard Drive Speeds - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 05:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Taken from another thread.

For those interested in seeing the difference...

Green transfer is a 2.3% difference than the Seagate and faster than the Red in a few of the tests here echoing what I have been saying for months that these drives are very close performance wise for HTPC.





assassin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 08:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Lesson being buy the cheapest drive you can get. Any modern drive will most likely saturate a gigabit network anyway.

Assassin, can you get your hands on some of the latest Hitachi and Toshiba 3TB drives?
amarshonarbangla is offline  
post #3 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 08:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

Lesson being buy the cheapest drive you can get. Any modern drive will most likely saturate a gigabit network anyway.

Assassin, can you get your hands on some of the latest Hitachi and Toshiba 3TB drives?

I can sure try. Let me check with our suppliers.
assassin is offline  
post #4 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 08:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1438027/planning-to-rebuild-my-20tb-whs-flexraid-server-information-requested/600_100#post_23025612

I think you missed this reply in my thread:
Quote:
BTW you know that the benchmarks you posted above for the Seagate XT ST33000651AS is an older design that does not use 1TB platters right ? You know it's not at all what we are talking about when we talk about the 7200.14's that sell for $120 today with 1TB platters and newer and better modern design ???

Seagate 3TB Barracuda XT Review (ST33000651AS)
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_3tb_barracuda_xt_review_st33000651as

Quote:
five 600GB platter count


Not the same as

Seagate Barracuda 3TB Review (1TB Platters - ST3000DM001)
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_3tb_review_1tb_platters_st3000dm001
Quote:
1TB platters

Originally you posted this below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post









Not really fair--- Wouldn't you agree ???

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #5 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 08:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

Lesson being buy the cheapest drive you can get. Any modern drive will most likely saturate a gigabit network anyway.

Assassin, can you get your hands on some of the latest Hitachi and Toshiba 3TB drives?

I have a Hitachi. It rocks hard over 150MB/sec on copy pastes real world. Even my 2TB does that. Highly recommended if you don't care they are energy pigs.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #6 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 08:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I have a Hitachi. It rocks hard over 150MB/sec on copy pastes real world. Even my 2TB does that. Highly recommended if you don't care they are energy pigs.

Is it a HGST drive?
amarshonarbangla is offline  
post #7 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 08:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
I'll chime in and correct this thread since Assassin is comparing an older design with (5) 600GB platters which uses more energy and provides lower performance versus the newer design of the Green/ RED drives.

I am calling BS on that.

You can't even buy that Seagate listed in those charts - NewEgg is sold out. It's discontinued.

The 7200.14 Seagate 3TB sells for $120 (cheaper than WD) and it blows away both RED and GREEN handidly. The lower cost per GB alone makes it worth it. But it's highly competitive on energy, heat, noise while remaining demonstrably superior in performance.

Here is a clip from my server post were we argued for two pages on this subject.


We can look at maximum writes, minimum writes, or average writes:


MAXIMUM:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-05-Write-Throughput-Maximum-h2benchw-3.16,2903.html






Minimum:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-06-Write-Throughput-Minimum-h2benchw-3.16,2905.html




OUCH! under 60MB/sec frown.gif

Average:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-04-Write-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2904.html





I think the results are obvious.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #8 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 08:51 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
assassin is offline  
post #9 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 08:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

It just doesn't stop. Ever.

Well... Your posting an old hard drive that uses 5 platter and more energy- and it is slower. It's not even available in today's marketplace easily or at low prices.

If you trying to use that to make a point it's borderline decietful to readers that don't know better.

I thought I'd post the "real" results from a $120 3TB Seagate 7200.14 that uses modern 1TB platters, offers better energy profile and higher performance. It's cheaper per GB and quite a bit faster.

I felt the need to speak up and make the correction. Sorry.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #10 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 09:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
The higher density platter isn't going to make a night and day difference. You need to understand what a statistically different difference means.
assassin is offline  
post #11 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 09:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Conclusion from Anand Shimpi himself...

Final Words
The new 3TB Barracuda is a bit faster in sequential performance than the old Barracuda XT, at lower power consumption. In typical desktop workloads I think it's fairly safe to say that you wouldn't notice the difference between the Barracuda and Barracuda XT.
assassin is offline  
post #12 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 09:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

The higher density platter isn't going to make a night and day difference. You need to understand what a statistically different difference means.

OK-

Help me understand.

You jump into my server thread and claim that the WD green is less than 10% slower. We post back and forth for two pages arguing, where I provide tons of evidence your wrong.
I also point out that the graphs you post and sources you cite are not even using the same hard drive we are talking about.

Then,

You start this thread for a reason unknown to me but that I assume would be to sway other opinions to align with your own. You ignore the correction I make about the modern Seagate 3TB (1TB platters) 7200.14 that sells regularly for $120 on websites like Amazon, Ebay and Newegg being totally different than the 5 platter (600GB platters) that is two generations old technology. You post the same bogus charts here with some apparent reason to be showing the WD RED and GREENs to be equal or superior in performance, even though I corrected you once and you know it's bogus.

Then,

When I post the data from the same website (tomshware) that you first and originally posted and labeled as "unbiased" and "actual data" you make a claim " the higher density platter isn't going to make a night and day difference"

I'm seeing night and day difference. I own both and use both daily.

How many MB/sec faster read or write would a 7200.14 3TB Seagate need to be over a WD GREEN for you to consider it a "night and day difference" ?

Modern Seagate 7200.14 3TB drives with 1TB platters can reach speeds of 200MB/sec. That's close to a slow SSD eek.gif

Clearly they are operating in a territory the 5400rpm WD's can't go, so I am not understanding at all the creation or point of this thread. You seem highly motivated to do three things:

#1. - Align more opinions with your own.
#2. -Promote 5400rpm WD drives
#3. -Deceitfully represent the 7200rpm Seagate as being same speed.

Motive? It's not obvious to me. The Intellispeed WD models like RED and GREEN are still great drives, and still great choices for a HTPC. I'm not understanding the point of this thread.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #13 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 09:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Conclusion from Anand Shimpi himself...

Final Words
The new 3TB Barracuda is a bit faster in sequential performance than the old Barracuda XT, at lower power consumption. In typical desktop workloads I think it's fairly safe to say that you wouldn't notice the difference between the Barracuda and Barracuda XT.


OK...


And storage review says:
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_3tb_review_1tb_platters_st3000dm001
Quote:
Conclusion

Seagate has largely done well with the 1TB platter iteration of the 3TB Barracuda. While not an immediate jump forward in overall hard drive capacity, this is still a significant proof point in the marketplace and Seagate should be commended for getting the technology to market. Even though the drive capacity holds firm at 3TB, performance-wise there are some big changes.

Outer platter top-line sequential read and write speeds are both up roughly 30% over the previous generation 5-platter drive and even the worst-case scenario inner portion of the platters saw an improvement of about 20 MB/s for both read and write activity. It's not all perfect though, the new drive saw issues with our read-intense gaming trace, falling behind the older model.

Most users buying this particular drive will be looking primarily for bulk storage with performance being a huge benefit when compared to high capacity green drives. The 3TB Barracuda delivers in a practical sense, easily saturating USB 3.0 or gigabit ethernet. Lastly, a big plus comes in the power consumption department; thanks to the lower platter count comes less power draw across all of our benchmarks.

Pros

Almost 200MB/s sequential transfer speeds
Very good performance in our HTPC benchmark
Improved power efficiency

Cons

Struggled with the read-intensive Gaming benchmark



Bottom Line

Overall, the new 3TB Barracuda moves in the right direction and certainly whets our appetite for upcoming higher capacity hard drives based on 1TB platters. It offers faster speeds than the prior version through most of our benchmarks and is many ways is the fastest 7200RPM 3TB 3.5" hard drive on the market. Couple that with the improved power profile and Seagate has a great option for those craving capacity and performance from a hard drive.

So I'm still not sure why your so strongly against a drive that's cheaper, and pure win ? Or your so motivated to position the WD intellispeed drives as equal or superior ?? They don't hold any significant advantages in energy profile, and they lose clearly in both performance and cost per TB. Both WD models also have some suspect reliability issues popping up on other forums, but I'm not a hater so I'll digress.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #14 of 853 Old 02-28-2013, 10:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 101
The 7200rpms are better at energy than the 5400s? I'm interested. Been using wd greens in jbod and haven't had issues with them.

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #15 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 03:22 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Its a study. It's a free world. People can read it, interpret it and use it (or not use it) however they want.

I found it interesting and thought others might as well.

Here is the whole study which further underscores that synthetic benchmarks sometimes correlate poorly to how the end user uses the product (actual time for transferring files, for example, which is a metric that is often discussed here on AVS as being important).

http://hardwarebbq.com/product-review/wd-red-wd30efrx-3-0-tb-sataiii-storage-drive-review/all/1/
assassin is offline  
post #16 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 05:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
That's all great except for the fact I own 20 of these drives and use them daily.

If I copy and paste a movie folder from a Seagate to a Seagate I usually get 170MB/sec. The number is right in front of me eyes all the time.

If I copy and paste from a Green WD I l'm both happy and lucky to hit 100MB/ sec and its usually 80MB or less "real world" when they are full or aren't new. (Which Seagates do near 200mb/sec at if your wondering)

I'm talking "real world" and no benchmarks my experience is the 7200.14 is nearly twice as fast. It's takes me half the time if I'm heavily copy pasting .

If that don't speak volumes I'm not sure what else I can say on the matter that could add any value further.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #17 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 05:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

The 7200rpms are better at energy than the 5400s? I'm interested. Been using wd greens in jbod and haven't had issues with them.

You should not have issues with any HDDs for a reasonable life expectancy. If you do it's bad luck. Anyone can have bad luck for any reason with any product.

Yes a 1tb platter drive like 7200.14's can operate at 7200rpm and remain competitive on energy consumption because of newer modern design and efficiency.

This versus say a 600gb platter HDD from two generations ago.

That's why I make the corrections above since assassin posted data from a two generation old Seagate with (5) 600gb platters that's not at all representative of a (3) 1TB platter design.

Basically :

500gb platters< 600GB platters<800gb playters<1TB platters

There's a difference between a 2TB drive with (4) 500Gb platters versus (2) 1TB platters.

A (5) 600GB platter 3TB drive is older and less ideal.

Not all 3TB or 2TB drives are the same internally. Improvements have been made at modern designs that have made newer drives more competitive. You can't just assume a "green" drive has better energy.

It probably does not if its older design.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #18 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 05:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nevcairiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,004
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

If I copy and paste a movie folder from a Seagate to a Seagate I usually get 170MB/sec. The number is right in front of me eyes all the time.

If I copy and paste from a Green WD I l'm both happy and lucky to hit 100MB/ sec and its usually 80MB or less "real world" when they are full or aren't new. (Which Seagates do near 200mb/sec at if your wondering).

You make yourself really believable if your numbers are very inconsistent, and the "full or not new" state even gets faster! rolleyes.gif

In any case, Red and Green drives are not designed for performance. Red drives are designed for reliability first and foremost, small-business and home NAS usage, which gives them a longer warranty as well (3y for red here, 2 for green or seagate 7200.14).
Personally, i don't need 170 MB/s (or was it 200 now?) in a NAS, because single gigabit is usually how its being accessed, and the extended warranty and hopefully better reliability does appeal. I'm not in the market for new HDDs right now so i can't say i did a ton of research if the Red drives really are worth the premium, but if they do what they claim, i would prefer them over a seagate desktop "performance" drive.

I have a system with 14 green drives right now (2tb drives of an older generation), and so far i can rely on it being 90-100MB/s consistently.

I'm not arguing that the seagates are not good, i'm just saying that especially the Red drives are designed for a different goal, and just looking at speed gives you only a partial image of the truth.
Nevcairiel is offline  
post #19 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 05:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

If I copy and paste a movie folder from a Seagate to a Seagate I usually get 170MB/sec. The number is right in front of me eyes all the time.

If I copy and paste from a Green WD I l'm both happy and lucky to hit 100MB/ sec and its usually 80MB or less "real world" when they are full or aren't new. (Which Seagates do near 200mb/sec at if your wondering).

You make yourself really believable if your numbers are very inconsistent, and the "full or not new" state even gets faster! rolleyes.gif

I thought I was clear about both drives at both states.


Use independent data if you must :

MAXIMUM:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-05-Write-Throughput-Maximum-h2benchw-3.16,2903.html






Minimum:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-06-Write-Throughput-Minimum-h2benchw-3.16,2905.html




OUCH! under 60MB/sec frown.gif

Average:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-04-Write-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2904.html





My only reason I make mention is because there's a difference in the way a HDD performs when it gets to the inner or outer edges of a platter.

An advantage usually goes to the higher platter density .

Quote:
Seagate Barracuda Specs 3TB
3TB - 64MB cache (ST3000DM001)
SATA 6Gb/s
Spindle Speed - 7,200 RPM
Average read - 156 MB/s
Max read - 210 MB/s
4096 bytes per sector
Six heads, three disks
Power - Operating 8.0W, Idle 5.4W, Standby .75W
OptiCache, AcuTrak and SmartAlign Technolgies


One of the more telling aspects of any newer hard drive is looking at its performance at the inner and outer edges of the platters. As drive density increases or rotational speeds get faster, users can generally expect data transfer speeds to increase as well. In the case of the new 3TB Barracuda , transfer speeds measuring just under 200MB/s compared to under 140MB/s of the previous generations and models. This has been an Achilles heal for GREEN and RED drives as they slow down significantly when they are full, and slow down depending on where the data is stored (inner vs outer edges of platters)

My 3TB and 2TB WD Green drives with 5400rpm spindle speed can read or write at 100MB/sec when new- but slow down to 60MB/sec when full in some situations. Seagates slow down too. But they slow down from about 200MB/sec to about 110MB/sec.. with an average somewhere in between those two for most real world scenarios.

The slow down happens on both Seagate and WD but the Seagate in its lowest performance state is acceptable and preferable to me over the same with Green WDs.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #20 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 05:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Someone please explain to me how a demonstrably higher performance HDD that's sells for a lower price is a "bad" thing when choosing a storage drive cause I'm totally at a loss why I'm making make these points and corrections.

WD brand preferences are fine. They're fine drives. I'm not seeing the reason to try to place them on equal footing with a Seagate when they clearly are not.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #21 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 05:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nevcairiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,004
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 107
If you think re-posting a screen full of screenshots makes your point any more clear, then you certainly are mistaken. Your general writing and posting style already gives you a rather unclear feeling to begin with. tongue.gif

And you again ignored the most important point. A WD Red has a completely different target than a consumer desktop drive, and as such also other properties than just pure speed. If all you want is fast drives, buy Seagate for all i care.
Nevcairiel is offline  
post #22 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 06:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
aliaskary77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

It just doesn't stop. Ever.

...says the guy who says he wont argue this anymore, yet does, and even creates new threads to bring it all back up again. And accuses the other of doing the exact same thing.

reminding people that this is a home theater forum doesnt negate the need for some people to also want higher performance especially when you are not sacrificing much to get it. i personally dont want a single use machine. i bet there are many others in the same boat. if i wanted a gaming rig, yes, i would go to hardocp. but running a media player, flexraid media storage server, video encoding, and databases for work on the same machine, i think i am in the right place.

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 online now  
post #23 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 07:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevcairiel View Post

If you think re-posting a screen full of screenshots makes your point any more clear, then you certainly are mistaken. Your general writing and posting style already gives you a rather unclear feeling to begin with. tongue.gif

And you again ignored the most important point. A WD Red has a completely different target than a consumer desktop drive, and as such also other properties than just pure speed. If all you want is fast drives, buy Seagate for all i care.

smile.gif OK. Fair enough. I'll accept my posting style is not idea for you. wink.gif You win that point. biggrin.gif

Secondly,

I'm not missing that point; RED certainly has a nice niche in it's targeted consumer category. If I was building a low power pre-fabricated NAS box WD RED drives would be near the top of my list because of cool and quiet operations, long warranty, and great vibration resistance. I think they are idea for that application, and not ill suited for home media servers either. The longer warranty and street prices near WD greens, newer design (1TB platters) and higher performance make them a good choice over WD GREEN- especially since WD recommends them for those purposes and does not recommend GREEN. I never suggested or pretended otherwise. I'd consider RED WD drives personally if I found them under $40 per TB, or on par with the pricing of the better Seagate 7200.14's.

I think your missing the point I am making that the Seagate is a do it all drive with clear advantages in performance that's not well represented by Asassin or in the intention of this thread; Even more is that Seagate also holds a signifcant advantage in price which is usually paramount in any purchase decision and they are not at all ill suited for use in a HTPC, PC, mediaserver or NAS box- Making them highly attractive.

I understand completely WD's product strategy. They have differentiated and made specific certain product lines for certain types of applications. This "specialized" approach makes sense if your looking for certain attributes in your drive for very distinct applications. Example being your right about the RED being a fine product for it's intended purpose. But- I am not sure I see the benefit or advantage to this approach. I think it hurts WD and helps Seagate. Seagate uses a one drive for all approach that is very different. It's a good balance on most characteristics, and it's got economies of scale in it's favor.

Here is how I sum up my understanding of the WD line:

Black - High performance. Energy pigs. Equivalent of an older muscle car with a modified supercharged V8 engine. Not going to deliver good gas mileage, and not as efficient in design as newer models- but excellent at it's specialized area. Like a muscle car is good at acceleration, power and speed- A black drive is too- but in seek times. They have overbuilt cache, boards, use 7200rpm and place seek time as a priority. This used to make them great OS drives before SSD stole that market. Today they are still good at seek times, but really do not hold any advantage in sequential speeds like copying a big movie file, making them terrible choices for media servers, and HTPC's. A Seagate 7200.14 is faster in comparision. The high price, high heat, high noise, and high energy consumption makes this drive a poor choice for most in this forum.

Blue - Used to be the bread and butter of WD. The normal 7200rpm drive. Lost much of its thunder these days. Market shifted in 2010 towards the lower heat, noise, and better energy profile of the green 5400rpm drives. In 2010 when we were at 500GB platters- the GREEN drives debuted as newer more efficient designs that could compete on performance, and win on energy profile. Green also had aggressive pricing. Most switched from the older blue's to the newer greens - and rightfully so. Blue has not regained it's former glory in the current day market place.

Green Debuted as an energy saving, low cost, low heat and low noise drive. Found good success in basic storage applications where it's benefits were appreciated. (HTPCS's biggrin.gif) Remains a great choice for basic storage in a PC or HTPC today for the same reasons it always has been. But if we peel away the layers we'll see that 2 years ago Green drives had a higher platter density, newer more modern design and could hang with the 7200rpm drives of yesterday in performance while being better at energy and selling cheaper. Today, opposite is true. They are less advantaged because new 7200rpm drives with even more modern designs and higher density have hit the market taking back the performance advantage and also the price advantage. Two big blows to the viability of Green drives; also the newer 1TB platters and more efficient designs have allowed 7200rpm drive to operate with a better energy profile too making them even more attractive. Green drives are basic storage specific and are not recommended for media servers, NAS boxes or many of the duties storage drives are used for today. The market has shifted from internal bare HDD storage to NAS- with NAS boxes and home servers which typically hold many HDD's. Green drives do not have advanced anti vibration technologies like RED making them a poor choice in those applications. They also have a shorter warranty which sucks. They suffer from TLER issue and should never be used in RAID set ups. Lastly, it is a controversial topic but the green drives have a few power savings features that lower total reliability- specifically in 24/7 applications like NAS boxes and Servers. For this reason- WD does not recomend green drives for those purposes and the change in the market to those purposes was the main reason for the introduction and design of the RED drive line that is recommended for those purposes. The controversial issue the agressive settings in the "intellipark" head parking feature that parks the heads on a green drive after 8 seconds. The idea is to shut down the drive quickly when not in use and save on energy consumption; But this feature has a side effect in 24/7 applications like NAS boxes, File servers, and linux based machines. The side effect is the drive gets subjected to an excessive amount of ON/OFF cycles which causes premature wear and lower endurance. It's not going to die instantly if you use a green drive in a NAS box, linux box, Unraid/ubuntu or a media server- but it's probably not an ideal use for them per WD and MFG recommendations. You can disable this feature with WDidle8 or WDidle3 firmware hack which also removes the "click" of the head parking which is nice for internal HTPC applications if it bothers you. The click is not loud, but it can be annoying.

Here is some info on the WD GREEN head parking and reliability issues:

http://community.wdc.com/t5/Desktop-Portable-Drives/Green-Caviar-High-Load-Cycle-Cout-after-short-operation-time/td-p/15731

http://community.wdc.com/t5/Desktop-Portable-Drives/Green-Caviar-High-Load-Cycle-Cout-after-short-operation-time/td-p/15731/page/16

http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=78891

http://www.networkedmediatank.com/printthread.php?tid=20686

http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5357/session/L3RpbWUvMTM2MjE1MjE0Ny9zaWQvQktRUmI0a2w%3D
Straight from WD themselves:


If you wanted to know more there is tons more information here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=WD+Green+head+parking+issue


*disclaimer- My goal is not to disparage or denounce Green drives as I believe they are good choices for their intended and MFG recommended purposes; I just want create some awareness on the specificity of their intended purpose and possible complications of using them outside that purpose.



RED The newest product line WD offers with a specialized design and recommended purpose for NAS boxes, Mediaservers, 24/7 operations. They do not have the TLER issues of green drives making them much better for these purposes and for any RAID set ups. They are designed and certified for use in server cases, and cages with >5 HDD's and feature advanced anti vibration technologies making them more appropriate solution in such configurations. RED uses the same 5400rpm rotational spindle speed of the GREEN drives making them very attractive on energy profile. RED uses 1TB platters and is a newer design so it's normal to see both energy figures and performance figures superior to Green drives. RED is basically the evolution of the green drive into today's market that has a strong need for NAS, 24/7 media servers and applications that are more common than a few years ago- RED offers a longer warranty which is nice too. They still have the 5400rpm speed so the performance is acceptable but below what you see from a modern 7200rpm design with 1TB platters, making them a good low performance solution.

RE and AVG/P Expensive to the point I'll not make much of these two lines. WD makes a audio/video drive with wear leveling and high endurance for use in DVR and constant video recording applications and also makes many enterprise level drives that do not have head parking or TLER issues and are designed for high endurance in demanding enterprise applications like servers and data RAID set ups. The price of these drives makes them a poor choice for HTPC's and cheap home storage.

That is basically how I'd sum up my personal understanding of WD lines- but I for sure appreciate the singular and simplistic approach of Seagate by comparision.

Seagate has designed a one size fits all drive that tries to balance everything into a very attractive product. Enter the 7200.14. It's a modern design with (3) 1TB platters making it both higher performance AND more energy efficient. It does not have any head parking issues or TLER issues. It's a good solution for internal PC and HTPC storage. It's a great solution for home media server or NAS too. It's faster than 5400rpm drives, it's on par and competitive with energy (something 5 platter older 7200rpm are not) and because of the one size fits all approach it benefits from significant economies of scale and aggressive market pricing making it the highest value HDD. It's typically the lowest cost per TB today ($40 per TB).

Toshiba has a 3TB that has some buzz and the Hitachi drives are very good but use more energy.
pokekevin likes this.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #24 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 08:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliaskary77 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

It just doesn't stop. Ever.

...says the guy who says he wont argue this anymore, yet does, and even creates new threads to bring it all back up again. And accuses the other of doing the exact same thing.

reminding people that this is a home theater forum doesnt negate the need for some people to also want higher performance especially when you are not sacrificing much to get it. i personally dont want a single use machine. i bet there are many others in the same boat. if i wanted a gaming rig, yes, i would go to hardocp. but running a media player, flexraid media storage server, video encoding, and databases for work on the same machine, i think i am in the right place.

I don't mind at all biggrin.gif Since I actually like talking about this stuff. I just continue to fail to understand the purpose this thread was created.
We had the exact same conversations in my server thread.

I'm certian a few around here dislike my posting style and find me a general annoyance; It's reasonable to expect a few of those to speak up against me regardless of the issue.
I've taken my licks on other controversial topics, but this thread isn't one of them. wink.gif

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #25 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 08:42 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I don't mind at all biggrin.gif Since I actually like talking about this stuff. I just continue to fail to understand the purpose this thread was created.
We had the exact same conversations in my server thread.

Says the guy that routinely posts the same question in 2 or more threads via copy and paste while starting a new thread with the exact same question via copy and paste.
assassin is offline  
post #26 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 08:43 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliaskary77 View Post

...says the guy who says he wont argue this anymore, yet does, and even creates new threads to bring it all back up again.

That's fair. I hadn't seen this data though and have never seen a comparison where they tested a simply file transfer measures in seconds.
assassin is offline  
post #27 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 08:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
aliaskary77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 43
see, the trollness continues. jumps into every thread, then creates new ones to continue. discussing is great. continuously waterboarding a dead horse isnt.

and to be clear, its more about the topic of seagate vs green, from both sides that is getting tiring.

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 online now  
post #28 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 08:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I don't mind at all biggrin.gif Since I actually like talking about this stuff. I just continue to fail to understand the purpose this thread was created.
We had the exact same conversations in my server thread.

Says the guy that routinely posts the same question in 2 or more threads via copy and paste while starting a new thread with the exact same question via copy and paste.

Guilty as charged probably biggrin.gif

I said I didn't mind tongue.gif

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #29 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 09:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post



That's fair. I hadn't seen this data though and have never seen a comparison where they tested a simply file transfer measures in seconds.

Well I know you hate benchmarks and prefer "real world" and you have some valid points on that. I've taken a few corrections from you on various subjects and regarding such benchmarks in the past and I'll happily admit you provide good balance to my performance appreciative personality.

BUT!

The sequential HDD speeds and benchmarks are not one of those benchmarks that don't translate to real world. They do translate directly. If HDD #1 is sequentially copy pasting or reading/writing @ 150MB/sec and HDD #2 is doing the same tasks at 100MB/sec it's a very direct real world translation into the time it takes.

If your going to copy a 25GB MKV movie then at 150MB a second it's going to take 25,000MB (25GB please ignore the 1024 thing for simplicity) divided by 150MB/sec = 166.6 seconds (2.7 minutes)

If you do the same thing at 100MB/sec you get 250 seconds or 4.1 minutes.

It's important to note that there is many applications that do not require 150+ MB/sec speeds either read or write (like a NAS limited at 125MB/sec or slower by gigabit speed limits). That is why it's fine to use a 100MB/sec HDD like a RED drive in a NAS box without it being a big issue for most.
If your doing disk to disk transfers - parity calculrations, and stuff not over LAN then sure the 160MB sec speeds of a Seagate are highly appreciated. But a slower 5400rpm drive is going to function fine as well. I'l live if it takes me an extra 1.5 minutes to copy a bluray rip tongue.gif

I have a good mix of both drives, I just placed a 4TB seagate in my mothers HTPC and a 3TB GREEN in my brothers. I even have a 3TB GREEN for my parity drive eek.gif (but I have a new Seagate 3TB that I am swapping that for this weekend)

I'm a risk taker and using a green drive in a media server even with headparking endurance concerns does not bother me much. I'm living dangerously. I think Flocko had an issue with his 3TB parity though. I remember him saying he had an issue getting the new parity to work which ended up being a read error on one of his drives with flexraid or somthing. I had the same issue which is why I ended up replacing 2 of my 2TB green drives by just copying the data from them to the new Seagates. I ended up consolidating lots of stuff (putting all TV shows on one drive, All non HD on another, All blurays on another etc) and organizing it anyways when I rebuilt my server.


After this weekend I'll be 100% Seagates in my server, with 6 WD greens I'l need to do something with. Planning to sell a few, and use the others for local internal HTPC storage across various machines. I'm not ashamed to admit I have a 2TB green and a 3TB green in my server now. My biggest point in all this thread is that if I was doing it over again right now- I'd choose differently knowing what I know now. Green drives made lots of sense to me 2 years ago but make little sense today outside the small application they are designed for given they have lost some of the edge they had in the old days. The one size fits all Seagate 3TB is really a nice drive for just about anything.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #30 of 853 Old 03-01-2013, 09:04 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by aliaskary77 View Post

see, the trollness continues. jumps into every thread, then creates new ones to continue. discussing is great. continuously waterboarding a dead horse isnt.

and to be clear, its more about the topic of seagate vs green, from both sides that is getting tiring.

So you can make comments about me and I can't reply to them?

Got it. Interesting opinion.
assassin is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

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