Quote:
Originally Posted by
assassin 
This "whole lot better" is largely a figment of your imagination. Or placebo. Or marketing (which is what you always reference).
It's [ quote ] " whole lot better " [end quote]
The WD green is trash for so many reasons I don't feel like repeating. Just go back and re-read everything above. I have yet to see a drive that competes with the Seagate on all fronts, (cost, performance, reliability). I know you love WD and prefer them over Seagate and that's ok.
I used to love them too. But technology changes so quick - and yesterday is no longer today.
Quote:
(Data taken from
Anand Shimpi's testing whose opinion I value a great deal) [huge disagreement here from mfusick]
I could not possibly disagree with you more. Anand is perhaps the very most biased forum and articles on PC hardware online today. I very often disagree with them as they are biased and slanted to specific purposes that just don't include the whole of users. This is no different. In the context of basic storage server- that entire article leaves much to be desired and non of his results match the various other sources I have seen.
How you value his opinion over other's blow my mind. I linked 5 reviews of that seagate (all very positive and more substantial) versus your 1 biased source. 5 versus 1. So your telling me Anand is right and 5 other reviewers are wrong?
All those charts and crap you posted are based on using the drive for an OS. Who is going to do that ??? I could care less about those benchmarks or anything that review is saying because it's written from the perspective that's just not on the level of my intended usage.
The only benchmark on a storage drive that matters is sequential reads and writes, and access time. Even those are not super important. We are talking milliseconds difference in speed of how fast a movie starts playing. It matters not.
Any if your keeping track- the access time- the seq read/write of the seagate is way faster. I'd say it "romps it handily" in performance. Of coarse that's second to the cost per TB and the reliability (which seagate also wins)
Quote:
The Barracuda XT was consistently faster than the new 3TB Barracuda in our trace based benchmarks. Keep in mind that both of these tests were created on and for SSDs.
Huh? That makes no sense. And for some reason Anand article does not have the same results of the other 5 reviews I have seen which makes me think they are doing something wrong or just biased.
Quote:
Power consumption is obviously lower than the old Barracuda XT, but still not quite as low as a 5400RPM Barracuda Green or WD Caviar Green. If you were expecting the new Barracuda to completely replace the outgoing Barracuda Green you will be disappointed. It looks like if you need a high capacity, low power 3.5" drive going forward it won't be from Seagate.
The power difference is actually very small. Small enough as to not matter at all in actual $ spend on electricity. It's not going to outweigh the higher performance and lower cost to purchase at all . I'd rather keep $20 in my pocket and buy the better Seagate.
Quote:
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.
So then what's the point? Faster for less power- and lower cost seems good ???
Quote:
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.
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.
and my Desktop even has 16 
My old server case is empty and unused in the basement and it hold 14 
