Originally Posted by Mfusick
Originally Posted by assassin
You posted factually inaccurate data and opinion.
I did? Like what? I think you are reaching. I think your wrong.
You might have mistaken my opinion being different than yours as my posting factually inaccurate data. You love to cry for data so here it's my turn to do it.
What did I post that was "factually inaccurate data?" Opinion is subjective, and succeed that to you ahead of time mine is far different than yours; but I don't believe I ever posted factually inaccurate data.
Originally Posted by assassin
There is almost no difference between the older Seagate and the new Seagate in regards to performance as I and others have pointed out; so a comparison is very much appropriate given the paucity of available comparative data available.
I would encourage you in the future to not just use "common sense" and to actually use the available data to make blanket statements that are almost always inaccurate and just not true. As a service to the community I and others will continue to correct you where you are incorrect.
Well, considering that the 3TB Barracuda XT (ST33000651AS) was high end flagship hard drive in it's day, costing over $250 and providing full 5 years warranty- the fact the $115 priced 7200.14 ( ST3000DM001) we are talking about even compares favorably to it at all should be reason enough to suggest it's worth.
But I am not sure I fully agree with you. The 1TB platter model that is available today at Newegg for $115 is about 20MB/sec faster. Regardless of the fact someone might or might not actually need that... I don't think it's insignificant enough to say "almost no difference" either.
I doubt it's very significant to normal users in the real world. We are comparing a $250 flagship on yesterday's technology to a basic consumer level drive at half the price using current technology so it's not going to show huge differences. I think this point was made by someone else earlier in this thread but overlooked. It was a worthy point.
Here's some data you love:
Keep in mind it's by far and a way the cheapest HDD in the above charts too. It's being compared against higher end more expensive hard drives, and not WD RED/GREENs. The difference it would show against those would be far more significant, which was my other original point.
Seagate Barracuda XT 3TB Specs - ST33000651AS
Interface - SATA 6Gb/s
Max Sustained Data Rate - 149MB/s
Cache - 64MB
Average Latency (ms) 4.16
Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
Bytes per Sector 512
Load/Unload Cycles 300K
Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read, Max 1 per 1014
Annualized Failure Rate (AFR) 0.34%
Mean Time Between Failures (hours) 750,000
Limited Warranty - 5 years
Startup Current +12 Peak (A, ±10%) 2.0A (24W), Standby 0.55W, Operating, Average 9.23W, Idle 7.37W
3.5" form factor
Regarding energy profile:
According to Seagate your also looking at an energy profile advantage. 7.37W idle versus 5.4W. XT with 5x600GB platters versus the 7200.14 with 1TB platters, ( This is MFG specs and I am too lazy to go searching to validate them)
WD GREEN = 5.5W at idle. So 7.37W versus 5.5W shows GREEN to have a small advantage, but when you look at the new 1TB platter's 5.4W the difference becomes far less significant. Basically it is insignificant, with the Seagate actually using less energy.
That was my point originally. The new drive is a bit faster, a bit better on energy, and a bunch less expensive in cost. Factoring all this into the equation made me feel it was a lot better option than you were presenting it to be, and specifically it was a very considerable option versus the WD GREEN or RED which perform quite a bit slower and cost more.
Sometimes I can't tell if you actually believe in what your trying to suggest or post because you really do, or because you just want to not agree with me, or show me to be wrong. I know it happens to me where I pretend to care about stuff (like this) a lot more than I actually do in order to just be "right". It's a competitive trait that might not always be a good thing. I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt on that matter, because alternatively I honestly see almost no value whatsoever in a WD green HDD and the idea that it is as good a purchase decision as a Seagate 3TB 7200.14 in the current year and market of 2013 seems totally crazy to me.