or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › WD Red vs WD Green vs Seagate 3TB Hard Drive Speeds
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WD Red vs WD Green vs Seagate 3TB Hard Drive Speeds - Page 17

post #481 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

Are any of these consumer drives rated for 24/7 operation?

Great question. I am not really sure the answer.

Honestly- I really don't care. If I did I would go look it up. I totally disregard this as unimportant. If your drives spin down or are not being used 24/7 then it really does not matter. Using the 3TB Seagate in my server in reality is not much different than my using it in my desktop how I have it set up- so it's totally not a factor I consider important.


I think the drives all will last about the same time real world and there is just simply too many factors that contribute to the drives life expectancy. If the MFG rates it or not I doubt it makes much difference real world. If I waive a magic wand and suddenly rated a drive for 24/7 doesn't mean much has changed in the reality of it being used. It just means WD tested them or certified them to be 24/7. The certification is more a marketing ploy to get you to spend more on the RED drive because it's specific to the task of a 24/7 server and NAS. But in all honesty- The RED would make a very nice basic storage drive in a PC or HTPC in single or dual drive set ups too. It's not really only for servers and NAS boxes.

I've never head of anyone having any troubles with the Seagates in Servers or NAS boxes but I am not sure if they are officially stamped certified for 24/7. I always viewed that MFG certification stamp as a marketing ploy and generally unimportant.

If it was truly important- then you should look at a real enterprise level drive. Seagate and WD both make enterprise lines with true certification and 24/7 endurance testing.
post #482 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

Are any of these consumer drives rated for 24/7 operation?

Most likely not, but do consumers run their drives 24/7?
post #483 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerBacon View Post

Incorrect assessment.

A subsequent study that was referenced by someone that showed that it IS valid and actually was faster than the "ancient" HDD technology that you are referencing.

Again> Science. Why test, right? "Common sense" tells you newer must be better. rolleyes.gif

But it was tossed aside. Why? Because it didn't fit into his acceptable data set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Links or you made it all up.

Crickets...
post #484 of 853
Quote:
I don't mean to sound negative on the RED WD at all.

biggrin.gif

This is really dependent on use case, but my guess is that no argument will stop your crusade and therefore any opinions are moot. I own both, I am happy with both, I have no preference whatsoever. But there are differences.

Seagate markets their drives for the desktop, WD Red specifically for NAS. In no place in Seagate literature is 24/7 operation called out while this is a highlight of WD Red.

Price, performance and energy cost deltas are miniscule, although I can understand detailed analysis of the numbers to determine real benefit.

Quote:
WD is purchased for WD brand preference or scared people who don’t mind overspending for a warranty

While I don't necessarily value the warranty itself (if it's going to fail, it will likely do so well within any warranty period), the impact of Seagate's 2 years and WD 3 years is significant - which manufacturer places more confidence in its product, Seagate or WD?

Carry on.
post #485 of 853
Most of my drives will last longer than I'm willing to use them anyway. I no longer care that my 1 TB WD Green still works after five years since it has been replaced at least two years ago. My 3TB drives are good for my use now, but I'd say in three to five years those will be retired from my system as well. All I want is for them to not fail for a few years.
post #486 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by renethx View Post

Has anybody compared Windows 7 and Windows 8? I have been using 8 for several months and feel it is better than 7 in this (and many other) regard. I will test this myself.
In my test, my "server" is Windows Server 2012 (I7-3770 16GB RAM with 2GB teamed NIC) and the "client" was Windows 8 (A6-5400 8GB RAM)
post #487 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

While I don't necessarily value the warranty itself (if it's going to fail, it will likely do so well within any warranty period), the impact of Seagate's 2 years and WD 3 years is significant - which manufacturer places more confidence in its product, Seagate or WD?

Carry on.

Who knows? Could be either company. WD gets more money per drive for the extra bit of warranty. Maybe they decided to roll in an extra year of warranty protection into the cost of their drives even if there is nothing special in the manufacturing process to validate the longer life. Getting a Seagate and a SquareTrade warranty might result in the same outcome.

I just bought three 3TB Seagates earlier this year. I debated getting the WD Reds at the time and both were in and out of my cart for a few days. I eventually went with the Seagates due to price and speed. Others may fell the extended warranty justifies the extra cost and not care about the speed differences. That's why there is choice.
post #488 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryansj View Post

Maybe they decided to roll in an extra year of warranty protection into the cost of their drives even if there is nothing special in the manufacturing process to validate the longer life. Getting a Seagate and a SquareTrade warranty might result in the same outcome.

There is one area where those two alternatives are clearly different:

If WD is considering making a change to the manufacturing or testing of their drives in order to save $X per unit, if they project that the change would increase their warranty replacement costs in the last year of warranty coverage by $Y per unit (on average), then WD would be a lot less likely to make the quality reducing change if Y > X , and their drives would be of higher quality than they would have been with a shorter warranty.

With an aftermarket extended warranty, there is no correlation between the length of the extended warranty and the quality of the drive.

Now, we do not know for certain that the former case ever happens, but at least it is plausible. So there is a reason to prefer a longer manufacturer's warranty. How likely that reason is to be important is a separate question.
post #489 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Most likely not, but do consumers run their drives 24/7?

For home servers, yes.
post #490 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

For home servers, yes.

What do you do at home that requires your hard drives to be spinning continuously? Just curious...I cannot think of anything, but then only my wife and I live in our house and we both sleep during the same time period (ie, not on different shifts).
post #491 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

Are any of these consumer drives rated for 24/7 operation?

Well I don't think they need to be rated. They will last better running 24/7 than by being turned off and on all the time.
I suppose it's common knowledge that spinning the drive down and back up again is what stresses the HDD. More like the motor though but you get my point right?
Also HDD's like stable temps.

My main rig is turned on pretty much 24/7 and I don't let Win7 to put to drives to sleep.
post #492 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

Quote:
I don't mean to sound negative on the RED WD at all.

biggrin.gif

This is really dependent on use case, but my guess is that no argument will stop your crusade and therefore any opinions are moot. I own both, I am happy with both, I have no preference whatsoever. But there are differences.

Seagate markets their drives for the desktop, WD Red specifically for NAS. In no place in Seagate literature is 24/7 operation called out while this is a highlight of WD Red.

Price, performance and energy cost deltas are miniscule, although I can understand detailed analysis of the numbers to determine real benefit.

Quote:
WD is purchased for WD brand preference or scared people who don’t mind overspending for a warranty

While I don't necessarily value the warranty itself (if it's going to fail, it will likely do so well within any warranty period), the impact of Seagate's 2 years and WD 3 years is significant - which manufacturer places more confidence in its product, Seagate or WD?

Carry on.

I have no disagreement with your post. I agree RED is a good drive. I'd buy one for $109 for the 3TB or $160 for a 4TB (does that exist ?) I just can't spend $20 or more per drive. It might be a personal thing, I'm just too cheap tongue.gif

By my count I have 14 Seagate 3TB drives with an average price near $100. (I've paid as little as $79, and max $119- with majority about $99) I saved about $30 per HDD compared to RED drives. So that is 14 x$ 30 = $420. I've actually bought about 35 Seagate 3TB and about 3 of the 4TB's but I only have 14 installed in my personal server currently; the others are in family PC's or machines I built for other members of this forum upon request. How I see it is that I have an extra $420 in my pocket to go buy more drives if they fail. That's about 3 hard drives. So unless every drive I have fails after my warranty is up and before the RED warranty would be up a year later I'm probably going to win; Even if I have one or two fail in between that time I'm still better off in cost savings- and personally I do prefer the Seagate for performance reasons. Make no mistake- I wish it had 3 years warranty instead of 2 years but it is what it is. I feel like if the warranty was longer the product might also be more expensive which is not desirable to me. I'd probably buy HDD's with only 30 days warranty for $20 less given the choice. I've owned near one hundred HDD's so that would not scare me at all based on my experiences with HDD's.

Back on topic,

I agree with you and what you said. I agree the WD is a great drive and the warranty is a nice bonus (I just wish I didn't have to pay so much more for it) I agree it's nice that WD specifically certifies the RED for NAS/Server use. I still have no hesitation using a Seagate for the same purpose but the fact the MFG blatantly makes the drive for the purpose is a nice touch for mental security. I'm probably a little biased towards Seagate these days since that is what I am buying. But make no mistake for 5 years I was a WD fanboy and bought nothing but WD. I have nothing against them other than I feel like they are not the best value, and a bunch of 5400rpm GREEN drives failed on me. What can I do ? I just accept it. I really have no hate for WD as a MFG and I would happily be purchasing their hard drives if in general they were about $20 cheaper. I just can't pay more for something I feel is not as good. It's either got to be better, or cheaper. If something is both better and cheaper it makes the decision easy. I don't mind paying more for better. But I can't pay more if it's worse. Even though RED is great and competitive- it's not really better at anything compared to a 5900RPM 1TB Seagate. That is the aspect I get hung up on.
post #493 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryansj View Post

Most of my drives will last longer than I'm willing to use them anyway. I no longer care that my 1 TB WD Green still works after five years since it has been replaced at least two years ago. My 3TB drives are good for my use now, but I'd say in three to five years those will be retired from my system as well. All I want is for them to not fail for a few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

For home servers, yes.

What do you do at home that requires your hard drives to be spinning continuously? Just curious...I cannot think of anything, but then only my wife and I live in our house and we both sleep during the same time period (ie, not on different shifts).

+1. I work weekdays. (Wife too)

We sleep same times (night)

I really only run my server between 5pm and 9pm and weekends. (spare time)

The rest of the time it just sits there.

And I know from experience running a drive 24/7 is not bad for it- and won't decrease the life of it. Even if the drive is not certified for 24/7 use it's perfectly fine. I expect any HDD I run 24/7 to last longer than the warranty and longer than I intend to use it. I am happy with 3 or 4 years from a HDD. I replace them about this length of time with a superior modern version. I've always done it. It's pretty cheap since hard rives change a lot in a few years time. To replace 4 hard drives from 3 years ago (1TB) you'd need only $150 and a single 4TB today.
post #494 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Links or you made it all up.

Always happy to supply links when data is involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post


This "whole lot better" is largely a figment of your imagination. Or placebo. Or marketing (which is what you always reference).

I have already referenced this once but let me do it again. This thread is comparing the Seagate Barracuda XT 3TB ST33000651AS (after which I will refer to it as the XT) which uses five platters vs the WD Red and WD Green 3TB drives.

Now let's compare the new Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 (after which I will refer to it as the Barracuda) which has three platters.

So let's see if your assertion and proclamation is correct on if the new three platter drives being "a whole lot better on all fronts" and "romps them handidly" is correct. Let's also validate your accusation that I was unfair in using the XT as a comparison.

(Data taken from Anand Shimpi's testing whose opinion I value a great deal)


















This data actually looks very similar to the original post of this thread. In fact, I would say it refutes your hypothesis that the new Seagate Barracuda three platter drives are "a whole lot better on all fronts" and "romps them handidly". In fact, I think the parameters of Anand Shimpi's testing favor the Green drives for storage. Now, I won't go that far as I think any of the three would be perfectly acceptable. But to say that the Seagate Barracuda is "a whole lot better on all fronts" and "romps them handidly" is utter gibberish when using data --- and I have now provided 2 sets of objective data from 2 different independent reviewers that also corroborates this opinion.

Again, its one thing to post a biased opinion based on what you own and to accuse and flame other people for providing their opinion. But its quite another to provide actual objective independent data to support your claim instead of quoting marketing material or opinions from other equally biased and uninformed forum posters that you read on the internet.
post #495 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerBacon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Links or you made it all up.

Always happy to supply links when data is involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post


This "whole lot better" is largely a figment of your imagination. Or placebo. Or marketing (which is what you always reference).

I have already referenced this once but let me do it again. This thread is comparing the Seagate Barracuda XT 3TB ST33000651AS (after which I will refer to it as the XT) which uses five platters vs the WD Red and WD Green 3TB drives.

Now let's compare the new Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 (after which I will refer to it as the Barracuda) which has three platters.

So let's see if your assertion and proclamation is correct on if the new three platter drives being "a whole lot better on all fronts" and "romps them handidly" is correct. Let's also validate your accusation that I was unfair in using the XT as a comparison.

(Data taken from Anand Shimpi's testing whose opinion I value a great deal)


















This data actually looks very similar to the original post of this thread. In fact, I would say it refutes your hypothesis that the new Seagate Barracuda three platter drives are "a whole lot better on all fronts" and "romps them handidly". In fact, I think the parameters of Anand Shimpi's testing favor the Green drives for storage. Now, I won't go that far as I think any of the three would be perfectly acceptable. But to say that the Seagate Barracuda is "a whole lot better on all fronts" and "romps them handidly" is utter gibberish when using data --- and I have now provided 2 sets of objective data from 2 different independent reviewers that also corroborates this opinion.

Again, its one thing to post a biased opinion based on what you own and to accuse and flame other people for providing their opinion. But its quite another to provide actual objective independent data to support your claim instead of quoting marketing material or opinions from other equally biased and uninformed forum posters that you read on the internet.



Don't you remember me posting this after that which you just quoted:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post


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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post


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:




and




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.

Quote:
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
Heads/Disks 10/5
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
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_3tb_barracuda_xt_review_st33000651as


Quote:
Seagate Barracuda Specs 3TB
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
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_3tb_review_1tb_platters_st3000dm001
Quote:
WD Caviar Green 5th Generation Specs (3TB WD30EZR)
Power Consumption
Spin Up - 10.75W
Seek - 6.25W
Idle - 5.5W
http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_caviar_green_3tb_review_wd30ezrsdtl


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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Here is some more "actual data" you love:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-01-Read-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2901.html


154.6 MB average on the 1TB platter versus 119.85 on the XT.

Worth a note: WD RED only 112 MB/s, and WD GREEN only 94MB/sec (3TB) and 93MB/sec (2TB)

That's in my opinion the most worthy benchmark test- the average read speed or write speed of a data drive.

Saying that 154.6MB/sec on the 1TB platter model versus 119MB/sec on the XT is the same seems inaccurate to me.


Let's look at some more "actual data"

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-02-Read-Throughput-Maximum-h2benchw-3.16,2900.html

Maximum Speed:
7200.14 1TB/2TB = 205MB/sec
7200.14 3TB = 193MB/sec (odd because I have 2TB and 3TB and the 3TB is faster in my personal test but I digress)
Seagate XT 3TB = 157MB/sec
WD GREEN 3TB = 121MB/sec
WD GREEN 2TB = 94MB/sec

I think speed and performance can be settled once and for all right? This is like the 5th time I posted information like this. Two independent and reputable sources (Tomshardware, and StorageReview) I think this is "actual data" yes?


And, to clarify the original point the question was not about how much faster or less energy the 1TB platter Seagate is versus the older $250 XT model with 5x600GB platters; but rather how much faster and how much energy the Seagate uses versus the more expensive and slower WD. I am not sure why the lines got blurred on that issue with debate about platters, and such effecting energy or speed. My only real point was if your looking at a 1TB platter WD GREEN or RED you should compare it to a more favorable 1TB Seagate if you want a proper comparison. In that comparison the Seagate is cheaper per TB, Faster in performance, and competitive on energy. It's faster, cheaper and uses less energy than an XT as well, but no one is shopping these against the XT usually.

So I am assuming we go back around in another circle first starting with how the speed doesn't matter real world right ? lol.... tongue.gif How about I just agree now biggrin.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Well, considering that the 3TB Barracuda XT (ST33000651AS) was high end flagship hard drive in it's day
http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barracuda-7200RPM-Internal-ST33000651AS/dp/B004VLZSHE
Quote:
There is a newer model of this item. See details below, or go to the newer item.
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Seagate-Barracuda-7200RPM-Internal-ST33000651AS/product/B004VLZSHE
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Seagate-Barracuda-3-5-Inch-Internal-ST3000DM001/product/B005T3GRLY

Right. $199 for the older 5 platter XT in the Amazon link you gave versus $135. (and $115 on Newegg right now)

Price alone means no one is going to buy that when the new model is far cheaper. Performance is basically irrelevant in the purchase decision. I could not get over the $199 price tag.

Although I generally don't like Anand as much as other sites I found this:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5042/seagates-new-barracuda-3tb-st3000dm001-review
Quote:
Platter density has been the crutch of hard drive makers in recent history. Increasing spindle speeds can reduce random access latency, but at the expense of cost and thermals. Improvements in random access performance via increasing spindle speed pale in comparison to what is possible with solid state storage, not to mention that driving motors at speeds beyond 10,000 RPM becomes quite difficult. The focus on increasing platter density is also difficult, but higher density platters can actually lead to reductions in power consumption rather than the opposite (through a reduction in the number of platters per drive). There's also the fact that if you can cram more data on a single platter there's a direct impact on sequential accesses.

Seagate decided that the performance loss of moving to 5900RPM wasn't justified by the power savings. It believed that by introducing a more power efficient 7200RPM drive it could deliver the best of both worlds, negating the purpose of the Green line. For most desktops, Seagate has a point. The couple of watts you save by slowing down the motor aren't really realized in a system that idles at 60W and can consume over 100W under load. On the other hand, the performance drop is definitely noticeable. Hard drives have pretty bad random access performance to begin with, and slowing spindle speed isn't going to help.

42001.png


This actually covered some of the topics we had argued earlier...
post #496 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerBacon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Links or you made it all up.

Always happy to supply links when data is involved.

I thought we already covered all that earlier. I demonstrated that the Anand benchmarks did not correlate with the benchmarks on three other independent professional review sites, and I demonstrated a statisitical difference in the speed of the 1TB platter model versus the 5 platter of 600MB model of the older model. (which BTW was a $250 flagship hard drive and designed to be awesome)

I even spoke about how I generally do not like Anand as a review site, and my personal opinion was there is many other better options out there. But since you (I say you because Roger Bacon and Assassin are the same person) liked that site I even used information from Anand himself's review to support the superior 1TB platter performance. I quoted above and here it is again:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5042/seagates-new-barracuda-3tb-st3000dm001-review
Quote:
Platter density has been the crutch of hard drive makers in recent history. Increasing spindle speeds can reduce random access latency, but at the expense of cost and thermals. Improvements in random access performance via increasing spindle speed pale in comparison to what is possible with solid state storage, not to mention that driving motors at speeds beyond 10,000 RPM becomes quite difficult. The focus on increasing platter density is also difficult, but higher density platters can actually lead to reductions in power consumption rather than the opposite (through a reduction in the number of platters per drive). There's also the fact that if you can cram more data on a single platter there's a direct impact on sequential accesses.

Seagate decided that the performance loss of moving to 5900RPM wasn't justified by the power savings. It believed that by introducing a more power efficient 7200RPM drive it could deliver the best of both worlds, negating the purpose of the Green line. For most desktops, Seagate has a point. The couple of watts you save by slowing down the motor aren't really realized in a system that idles at 60W and can consume over 100W under load. On the other hand, the performance drop is definitely noticeable. Hard drives have pretty bad random access performance to begin with, and slowing spindle speed isn't going to help.

42001.png

So now your own beloved site has even given credit against your so called theory. It's really not very debatable and I am not sure why you continue to insist that older 600GB platter tech is on par with 1TB platter tech.
post #497 of 853
Quote:
I just can't spend $20 or more per drive. It might be a personal thing, I'm just too cheap

You're the last person posting here I would consider cheap. An SSD in every box built regardless of duty? 8GB memory instead of 4 just because it's cheap?

Dude, save us all a lot of reading, scrolling and ignoring - just admit that you're biased. Then we can all move on. No offense, you're a nice guy and I respect your experience, but jeez it gets old seeing another Seagate vs. WD post from you every freaking day. Just for fun I did a google search, mfusick wd. 4,270 results across multiple forums, a random click on any one of them is an extension of the same argument. So tell us, how much Seagate stock do you own anyway? biggrin.gif
post #498 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

Quote:
I just can't spend $20 or more per drive. It might be a personal thing, I'm just too cheap

You're the last person posting here I would consider cheap. An SSD in every box built regardless of duty? 8GB memory instead of 4 just because it's cheap?

Dude, save us all a lot of reading, scrolling and ignoring - just admit that you're biased. Then we can all move on. No offense, you're a nice guy and I respect your experience, but jeez it gets old seeing another Seagate vs. WD post from you every freaking day. Just for fun I did a google search, mfusick wd. 4,270 results across multiple forums, a random click on any one of them is an extension of the same argument. So tell us, how much Seagate stock do you own anyway? biggrin.gif

I am cheap biggrin.gif !!

I just value performance enough to justify SSD over HDD. I only have an SSD in my HTPC, and it's not really much more expensive than a HDD. My server has a $49 120GB Vertex3 I bought on black friday special - specifically for that purpose. Just because I have SSD in my server and my HTPC does not mean I am not cheap. I am proud those SSD's only cost me $50 each tongue.gif

I did not mean to go back in time and regurgitate the same subject matter and I apologize for the extra scrolling. I did not want to bring this all back up. I am not sure why Assassin joined with another name to rehash an old argument. Call it a character flaw but I could not let that go. He provided the same information that was already once refuted earlier in this thread.

Sorry to beat a dead horse. Your right in that this has been all said and done before.
post #499 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

What do you do at home that requires your hard drives to be spinning continuously? Just curious...I cannot think of anything, but then only my wife and I live in our house and we both sleep during the same time period (ie, not on different shifts).

As I understand it, spinning down hard drives doesn't stop the platters completely, it only spins them to a very low RPM. Correct me if I am wrong. That would mean in a home server environment, the hard drives are working 24/7 even if they are set to spin down after a certain amount of time. When manufacturers put a MTBF on their drives, do they account for spin down times?
post #500 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I thought we already covered all that earlier. I demonstrated that the Anand benchmarks did not correlate with the benchmarks on three other independent professional review sites, and I demonstrated a statisitical difference in the speed of the 1TB platter model versus the 5 platter of 600MB model of the older model. (which BTW was a $250 flagship hard drive and designed to be awesome)

I even spoke about how I generally do not like Anand as a review site, and my personal opinion was there is many other better options out there. But since you (I say you because Roger Bacon and Assassin are the same person) liked that site I even used information from Anand himself's review to support the superior 1TB platter performance. I quoted above and here it is again:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5042/seagates-new-barracuda-3tb-st3000dm001-review
So now your own beloved site has even given credit against your so called theory. It's really not very debatable and I am not sure why you continue to insist that older 600GB platter tech is on par with 1TB platter tech.

You mean this post, immediately after the one he quoted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

No- You went digging and the only souce you can find is biased Anand that is old and the results don't jive with the other 5 tests and reviews being done. I've posted enough evidence to support my preference and show the error in your creating this thread.

When the Seagate sells for $20 cheaper, performs better, is more reliable, and has a wide range of uses I have no clue how you can't give it the nod over a WD green. WD green has a myriad of reliability issues, sells for more $, performs much worse, and has a very narrow purpose use.
The entire purpose of this thread make no sense, and your motivation to show the WD drive in the best possible light is unknown to me.


So we are back to the us of ancient HDD technology and pretending it applies to new HDD technology.
post #501 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

As I understand it, spinning down hard drives doesn't stop the platters completely, it only spins them to a very low RPM. Correct me if I am wrong. That would mean in a home server environment, the hard drives are working 24/7 even if they are set to spin down after a certain amount of time. When manufacturers put a MTBF on their drives, do they account for spin down times?

Ah, ok. I have no idea. I just could not think of anything that would be needed all the time. They could spin slowly still, not sure. I know the lights on my Norco 450TH turn off (the Installed light stays on, the In Use light turns off) when they spin down...but that does not mean they are standing still.
post #502 of 853
On the warranty issue: I think it's interesting to see and hear everyone differing opinion about the importance.

For some- Spending an extra $20 for an extra year warranty makes sense. For others they'd just get a longer warranty aftermarket on the cheaper better drive. The difference seems to be the perception of reality. The people who would pay for the extra $20 are really paying the extra $20 not because they want the warranty but because they feel like they are less likely to use it. Some feel like the WD RED is more reliable- even though there is no evidence at all this is true. Personally I think Seagate is more reliable than WD in 2013- but lots of WD buyers are thinking back to when Seagate was inferior to WD many years back and that perception from yesterday influences the decision today.

Others understand that most hard drives are reliable- and generally they are all about the same in reliability so the issue it not that important. Many feel the hard drive will out last the warranty period anyways- so assuming the drive lasts 5 years does it matter if it came with 2 years or 3 years warranty from the MFG ??

I am pretty sure if you offered me the exact same drive, and just took $20 off the price for only 30 days warranty I'd take that offer every time. I just have no fear about the issue whatsoever and I am willing to assume the risk personally. Others might not agree.

It's always interesting to see how people feel and think about the issue- and there is never a right or wrong answer.

Personally I believe you can not accurately predict the reliability of PC tech on the end consumer individual user level so it's totally pointless to worry about it- or even try. Any idea or assumption or feeling you have on the subject today is not at all going to translate to your future reality with the product tomorrow so it's usualyl best to leave that out of the equation when making your purchase decision. If your certain you know the future- ( no one does) it makes no sense worrying about that which you can not control.

It's likely you could purchase the statistically worst reliable HDD and have it last you many good years- just as it's likely you could purchase statistically best reliable HDD and it dies premature death.
post #503 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

What do you do at home that requires your hard drives to be spinning continuously? Just curious...I cannot think of anything, but then only my wife and I live in our house and we both sleep during the same time period (ie, not on different shifts).

As I understand it, spinning down hard drives doesn't stop the platters completely, it only spins them to a very low RPM. Correct me if I am wrong. That would mean in a home server environment, the hard drives are working 24/7 even if they are set to spin down after a certain amount of time. When manufacturers put a MTBF on their drives, do they account for spin down times?




I don't think idle or spin down time effects the drives longevity or life much. If you use the drive 24/7 but don't actually use it 24/7 it's no different than it being turned off. In some circles they argue it's best not to spin down or turn off the drive and that 24/7 operation actually improves life expectancy.

The cliff notes are: It doesn't matter for normal folks either way.




Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post


I thought we already covered all that earlier. I demonstrated that the Anand benchmarks did not correlate with the benchmarks on three other independent professional review sites, and I demonstrated a statisitical difference in the speed of the 1TB platter model versus the 5 platter of 600MB model of the older model. (which BTW was a $250 flagship hard drive and designed to be awesome)

I even spoke about how I generally do not like Anand as a review site, and my personal opinion was there is many other better options out there. But since you (I say you because Roger Bacon and Assassin are the same person) liked that site I even used information from Anand himself's review to support the superior 1TB platter performance. I quoted above and here it is again:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5042/seagates-new-barracuda-3tb-st3000dm001-review
So now your own beloved site has even given credit against your so called theory. It's really not very debatable and I am not sure why you continue to insist that older 600GB platter tech is on par with 1TB platter tech.



You mean this post, immediately after the one he quoted?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

No- You went digging and the only souce you can find is biased Anand that is old and the results don't jive with the other 5 tests and reviews being done. I've posted enough evidence to support my preference and show the error in your creating this thread.

When the Seagate sells for $20 cheaper, performs better, is more reliable, and has a wide range of uses I have no clue how you can't give it the nod over a WD green. WD green has a myriad of reliability issues, sells for more $, performs much worse, and has a very narrow purpose use.
The entire purpose of this thread make no sense, and your motivation to show the WD drive in the best possible light is unknown to me.



So we are back to the us of ancient HDD technology and pretending it applies to new HDD technology.




Yes that is what I mean. Lol. I was letting it all go before he got really nasty with me. I am not sure why he would bring up an old subject that was beaten to death already. I proved the selective Anand Benchmarks he originally used did not corelate with the majority of tests and benchmarks by multiple other review sites. I posted tons of "science" so I am not sure what the whole diggin it up to rehash it all was about.

On a side note:

I am not crazy right ? (Don't answer that ! tongue.gif ) Roger Bacon deleted all 14 of his nasty posts directed at me- including the smoking gun where he commenting in the Assassin guide thread providing support to purchaser of the guide with a very Assassin looking embed hyperlink as one of his first ever posts on this forum. Did anyone else happen to notice that ? Roger got really nasty at me and when I called him out he deleted his posts - obviously knowing it was going to blow up in his face soon.







That posting style looks too familiar. That was a trademark of Assassin to use a hyper link embed, and it's strange someone would join this forum and make the first post they make- giving support in his buyers guide thread.

I am trying to figure out what happened because several of Roger Bacon's posts in this thread, and also a bunch of nasty off subject posts in the SVP thread got deleted. At first I thought it was Assassin (Roger Bacon) deleting them but then I noticed my own post replying was also deleted. So now I figure a mod just came in an cleaned up the mess. Probably best that way. Brian your post was deleted I believe too.

Now I really look like a regurgitating fool because all the stuff I was replying to has been removed eek.gif

I'm just hoping that I did not imagine it all.
post #504 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryansj View Post

Just about $20 more per drive ($120 in your case).

Where are you getting the Seagates for $110.00?
post #505 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathelo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryansj View Post

Just about $20 more per drive ($120 in your case).

Where are you getting the Seagates for $110.00?

Tiger Direct has them for that price almost twice a week. NewEgg occassinally does 109$ with Free shipping.

If you keep an eye on slickdeals.net there is always something popping up for that price.

But the 3TB 7200rpm isnt a direct competitor to a RED drive. It's got more robust performance. A more direct comparison would be the 5900rpm 4TB Seagate that sells for $149 (Newegg) and has slightly better energy profile due to the slower spindle speed. (5.4 watts versus 5.0 watts)
post #506 of 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathelo View Post

Where are you getting the Seagates for $110.00?

They pop up for that all the time as quoted above. Same as the Red for $130. You can buy the Seagates for "Used - Like New" all day long for under $110 shipped from Amazon Warehouse Deals.
post #507 of 853
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

But since you (I say you because Roger Bacon and Assassin are the same person)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I am not sure why Assassin joined with another name to rehash an old argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Roger Bacon deleted all 14 of his nasty posts directed at me- including the smoking gun where he commenting in the Assassin guide thread providing support to purchaser of the guide with a very Assassin looking embed hyperlink as one of his first ever posts on this forum. Did anyone else happen to notice that ? Roger got really nasty at me and when I called him out he deleted his posts - obviously knowing it was going to blow up in his face soon.



That posting style looks too familiar. That was a trademark of Assassin to use a hyper link embed, and it's strange someone would join this forum and make the first post they make- giving support in his buyers guide thread.

I am trying to figure out what happened because several of Roger Bacon's posts in this thread, and also a bunch of nasty off subject posts in the SVP thread got deleted. At first I thought it was Assassin (Roger Bacon) deleting them but then I noticed my own post replying was also deleted. So now I figure a mod just came in an cleaned up the mess. Probably best that way. Brian your post was deleted I believe too.

Now I really look like a regurgitating fool because all the stuff I was replying to has been removed eek.gif

I'm just hoping that I did not imagine it all.

Sorry to disappoint you Mfusick but I have nothing to do with whomever this guy is.

I received an email earlier today telling me about this situation and I had actually sent you an e-mail personally to your AOL e-mail address...
Quote:
Michael,

I received an e-mail alerting me of the situation over at AVS.

I wish I had the time to even visit AVS during the day anymore so let me guarantee you that this was not me with some other screen name. I have been extremely busy at work, starting a new career, moving, finishing construction on a new house, studying for a [deleted] exam, getting ready for our 3rd kid, etc etc etc. I just don't have the time.

As a side note I have always viewed you as a friend and even though we have our occasional arguments they are almost always in good fun. The thread that seems to be the most irritating to this guy/gal seems to be the WD vs Seagate thread. Well, I have used both multiple times and have said in that very thread that I think Seagate is the best bang for the buck currently. I think this is (and has been for quite some time) what the guys over at Assassin HTPC are using in our current systems, too.

Hope all is well for you. Hope to find some time to get back to AVS soon. I don't want to start more crap for you at AVS so I thought I would send this to you personally instead of posting it there. But feel free to share my thoughts.

No idea about the intense Anandtech defense though. Even though I am a moderator there I am admittedly a very poor one. I have visited the site maybe once or twice in the past month. AVS is and always will be the best place for HTPC, imo.
post #508 of 853
I have not checked my email since lunch. Sorry. Wife and I went for a friends daughter Birthday Party (We dressed like Mickey and Minnie Mouse) and just got home now.

No worries about anything. I'm pretty easy going and I am not sure this needs to go any further. It's pretty hard for me to get upset about an internet forum, and doing so would be silly.

Roger talked much like you, and choosing the name Roger Bacon (science guy) just was so coincidental. As a new member with obvious forum expertise and knowledge is was very suspicious. I had a couple discussion via PM with some members here wondering if it was you or not. This was before Roger got nasty today. It appears the Mods deleted much of it though. All for the best I guess.

I appreciate the email. Best luck with the three kids, building new home and the job eek.gif That sounds like quite a handful biggrin.gif
Edited by Mfusick - 6/3/13 at 6:10pm
post #509 of 853
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I have not checked my email since lunch. Sorry. Wife and I went for a friends daughter Birthday Party (We dressed like Mickey and Minnie Mouse) and just got home now.

No worries about anything. I'm pretty easy going and I am not sure this needs to go any further. It's pretty hard for me to get upset about an internet forum, and doing so would be silly.

Roger talked much like you, and choosing the name Roger Bacon (science guy) just was so coincidental. As a new member with obvious forum expertise and knowledge is was very suspicious. I had a couple discussion via PM with some members here wondering if it was you or not. This was before Roger got nasty today. It appears the Mods deleted much of it though. All for the best I guess.

No worries. Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately? depending on how you look at it I guess) I just don't have time even if I wanted to. I think I missed some of the posts before they were deleted as I was hoping to re-read them tonight. If nothing else it seemed entertaining.
post #510 of 853
It was actually some fun action on this forum for a change. Your email came just after I stopped checking it. Sorry I missed it until now.

Good luck with the house, kids job... biggrin.gif You ever decide on a projector and screen ? (I am designing an AT curved screen myself now)

BTW- since you slowed down your posting I am going to overtake you in post count I think tongue.gif better find some time and giddy up!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › WD Red vs WD Green vs Seagate 3TB Hard Drive Speeds