Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 46

Thread: 500 Gb WD 5000AAKS Caviar SE16 or 500 Gb Seagate ST3500630AS Barracuda 7200.10

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked
    14 times in 13 posts
    • Craig321's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8P67 Pro
      • CPU:
      • i7 2600k
      • Memory:
      • 4x 4GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB OCZ Vertex 3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX480 1536MB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair HX
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2410

    500 Gb WD 5000AAKS Caviar SE16 or 500 Gb Seagate ST3500630AS Barracuda 7200.10

    I'm trying to decide between these two drives:

    500 Gb Western Digital WD5000AAKS Caviar SE16, SATA300, 7200 rpm, 16MB Cache, 8.9 ms

    500 Gb Seagate ST3500630AS Barracuda 7200.10, SATA300, 7200 rpm, 16MB Cache, 8.5 ms, NCQ

    I've been told the WD is faster and quieter & that the Seagate can differ quite a bit with quietness.

    Which one is faster!?

    Thanks,
    Craig.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    5 times in 5 posts
    The two drives are very close in terms of speed but the WD is quieter and more reliable than the seagate.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    340
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked
    14 times in 14 posts
    never used either drive, but i've always thought seagates to run cooler than wds - no idea if this is still the case.

    TomsHardware HDD charts might be able to inform you performance-wise

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    406
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    13 times in 13 posts
    • Agrippa's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock X299 Taichi XE
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 7820X @ 4.8GHz (delid)
      • Memory:
      • 4x8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C14 @ 3600 CL15
      • Storage:
      • Samsung SM961 256GB, 850 EVO 1TBx2, 850 EVO 250GB, 840 512GB, Seagate 1TB, 2TB, 8x8TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX 1080 Ti RoG Strix
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RM1000x
      • Case:
      • Lian Li D8000
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer Predator Z35P
      • Internet:
      • 500/500 Fiber
    Depends who you listen to, but I like X-bit Labs' HD reviews for their thoroughness and variety of tests. According to them, the KS and YS series from WD are the overall fastest drives on the market right now. Another thing to take into account though, is Seagate's 5 year warranty on (I believe) all their drives.

    In any case, if you're "just" an average user you'll notice no real-life difference whatsoever between the two.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    3,050
    Thanks
    248
    Thanked
    33 times in 31 posts
    • amjedm's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus A8N-Sli Premium
      • CPU:
      • Athlon X2 4200 S939 + Scythe Ninja rev A
      • Memory:
      • 2GB Corsair DDR PC3200
      • Storage:
      • Samsung T 160GB Sata in Scythe Quiet Box
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 6600 256MB + Cooling Mod
      • PSU:
      • Enermax Noisetaker 485 (fanless) - lower chamber P180 fan doing the PSU cooling
      • Case:
      • P180 (modded - easier cable routing, front and rear grills cut)
      • Operating System:
      • XP Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 22" WTQ?
      • Internet:
      • O2 8MB (Standard)
    I'd go for the quieter drive - the WD

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked
    14 times in 13 posts
    • Craig321's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8P67 Pro
      • CPU:
      • i7 2600k
      • Memory:
      • 4x 4GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB OCZ Vertex 3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX480 1536MB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair HX
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2410
    Quote Originally Posted by amjedm View Post
    I'd go for the quieter drive - the WD
    Yes, I think that's what I'll do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa View Post
    Depends who you listen to, but I like X-bit Labs' HD reviews for their thoroughness and variety of tests. According to them, the KS and YS series from WD are the overall fastest drives on the market right now. Another thing to take into account though, is Seagate's 5 year warranty on (I believe) all their drives.

    In any case, if you're "just" an average user you'll notice no real-life difference whatsoever between the two.
    I wouldn't really be disappointed with either. Currently I have a 200GB SATA150 drive, so the Seagate & WD above will beat my current HDD by far

    I think I'll go for WD then, thanks guys

    I'm a bit disappointed with the warranty on the WD drives though

    Quote Originally Posted by Templar87 View Post
    never used either drive, but i've always thought seagates to run cooler than wds - no idea if this is still the case.

    TomsHardware HDD charts might be able to inform you performance-wise
    Nice little chart there, thank you
    Last edited by Craig321; 10-06-2007 at 12:41 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    406
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    13 times in 13 posts
    • Agrippa's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock X299 Taichi XE
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 7820X @ 4.8GHz (delid)
      • Memory:
      • 4x8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C14 @ 3600 CL15
      • Storage:
      • Samsung SM961 256GB, 850 EVO 1TBx2, 850 EVO 250GB, 840 512GB, Seagate 1TB, 2TB, 8x8TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX 1080 Ti RoG Strix
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RM1000x
      • Case:
      • Lian Li D8000
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer Predator Z35P
      • Internet:
      • 500/500 Fiber
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig321 View Post
    I wouldn't really be disappointed with either. Currently I have a 200GB SATA150 drive, so the Seagate & WD above will beat my current HDD by far
    Actually no current drives are exceeding the SATA150 specs, so you'll likely experience no difference at all. The only difference between a SATA drive and a SATA II drive is generally the interface, as several drives come in both flavours.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked
    14 times in 13 posts
    • Craig321's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8P67 Pro
      • CPU:
      • i7 2600k
      • Memory:
      • 4x 4GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB OCZ Vertex 3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX480 1536MB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair HX
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2410
    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa View Post
    Actually no current drives are exceeding the SATA150 specs, so you'll likely experience no difference at all. The only difference between a SATA drive and a SATA II drive is generally the interface, as several drives come in both flavours.
    I thought SATA300 was quite a bit faster.

    My current Maxtor gets and average of 52mb/s, current WD drives get almost 70mb/s average.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    406
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    13 times in 13 posts
    • Agrippa's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock X299 Taichi XE
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 7820X @ 4.8GHz (delid)
      • Memory:
      • 4x8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C14 @ 3600 CL15
      • Storage:
      • Samsung SM961 256GB, 850 EVO 1TBx2, 850 EVO 250GB, 840 512GB, Seagate 1TB, 2TB, 8x8TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX 1080 Ti RoG Strix
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RM1000x
      • Case:
      • Lian Li D8000
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer Predator Z35P
      • Internet:
      • 500/500 Fiber
    By all means, there are differences between different drives, but that's not due to the interface they use. SATA II is newer than SATA(150), so manufacturers naturally switch over to the most recent standard. In terms of speed though, no current drive is capable of exceeding the older SATA standard. In other words, if a SATA II drive is faster than a SATA drive, then it's faster because it's newer and better, not because of the interface. The interface is only "bolted onto" the drive and has no direct bearing on the drive's performance.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    20 times in 9 posts
    • Toobad's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z87-Pro
      • CPU:
      • i7 4770K
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 8Gb Crucial Ballistix Sport
      • Storage:
      • 240GB + 120GB Sandisk Extreme SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus HD 7750 1Gb DDR5
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! Straight Power 480W Gold
      • Case:
      • Fractal Designs Define R4
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 3007WFP-HC
      • Internet:
      • BT ADSL Max
    The number of platters and platter density is where the performance fight is taking place. The latest mainstream drives achieve 166Gb per platter. The less platters you have, the less power is required to spin them and hence less heat is generated. The greater the platter density, the quicker the access time.

    Seagate have just cracked 250Gb per platter with their perpendicular recording technology so new 7200.10 drives will be appearing shortly along with a 4-platter 1Tb drive which will probably be dubbed a 7200.11

    If you are buying right now you could also look at WD's Enterprise range for the server market. They have a 1.2 million hour MTBF and come with a 5-year guarantee yet only cost a few quid more than the Caviar series.
    Apparently, "Do whatever you like" should NOT be considered authorisation to build my uber rig!

  11. #11
    Efficiency freak Queelis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    842
    Thanks
    129
    Thanked
    78 times in 72 posts
    • Queelis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus H81M-A
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 4670K
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 2x4 GB 1333MHz DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX200 250GB, Toshiba E300 3TB, WD Green 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GeForce 1060 ITX OC 3GB
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet PurePower 10 600W
      • Case:
      • Antec Sonata Plus (oldie but goodie!)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell P2414H
      • Internet:
      • 300 mbit
    You might as well consider Samsung's HD501LJ, which is said to be quiet.

  12. #12
    HEXUS.timelord. Zak33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I'm a Jessie
    Posts
    34,074
    Thanks
    2,546
    Thanked
    2,624 times in 1,654 posts
    • Zak33's system
      • Storage:
      • Kingston HyperX SSD, Hitachi 1Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 1060
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 800w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT01
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTC uber speedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Toobad View Post
    The number of platters and platter density is where the performance fight is taking place. The latest mainstream drives achieve 166Gb per platter. The less platters you have, the less power is required to spin them and hence less heat is generated. The greater the platter density, the quicker the access time.
    agreed...the 160 per platter makes the Seagte 160 drives very light, fast, cool and quick. Have used two, both were nice

    Quote Originally Posted by Toobad View Post
    Seagate have just cracked 250Gb per platter with their perpendicular recording technology so new 7200.10 drives will be appearing shortly along with a 4-platter 1Tb drive which will probably be dubbed a 7200.11
    Perpendicular is also very good. I have not used a 250 gig drive, and am interested tofind just WHERE on the manufacturers websites does it state platter count. Cos I cant find it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Toobad View Post
    If you are buying right now you could also look at WD's Enterprise range for the server market. They have a 1.2 million hour MTBF and come with a 5-year guarantee yet only cost a few quid more than the Caviar series.
    True again, though I have recently found that the Caviar SE range was quicker, model for model than the Enterpise version. However, Enterprise drives have my beloved Molex power plug, the Caviar SE has just the new SATA power plug which I find wobbly

    Lastly...for interests sake, Western DIgital's much vaunted Raptors ALWAYS use 2 platers. No matter what size, they use 2 platters, to enable the perfect balance of intertia but also to allow plenty of data to be stored on the outter edges, ie at the maximum ditance from the spindle, to make them faster.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
    "The second you aren't paying attention to the tool you're using, it will take your fingers from you. It does not know sympathy." |
    "If you don't gaffer it, it will gaffer you" | "Belt and braces"

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    22 times in 22 posts
    Don't bother considering the 7200.10, it's slower and loud. I've a couple from Maxtor warranty replacements and I relegated them to the PC's of friends and relatives.
    The WD5000AAKS is an excellent drive (I have half a dozen), but I personally prefer the Samsung HD501LJ because it's quieter at the cost of being ever so slightly slower.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked
    14 times in 13 posts
    • Craig321's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8P67 Pro
      • CPU:
      • i7 2600k
      • Memory:
      • 4x 4GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB OCZ Vertex 3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX480 1536MB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair HX
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2410
    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa View Post
    By all means, there are differences between different drives, but that's not due to the interface they use. SATA II is newer than SATA(150), so manufacturers naturally switch over to the most recent standard. In terms of speed though, no current drive is capable of exceeding the older SATA standard. In other words, if a SATA II drive is faster than a SATA drive, then it's faster because it's newer and better, not because of the interface. The interface is only "bolted onto" the drive and has no direct bearing on the drive's performance.
    I see what you're saying Agrippa

    Hopefully I'll still see quite a difference though between the drive in my up and coming PC and the drive in my current PC purely because the technology is more advanced.

    I think I shall be going with the WD, thanks everyone!

    Oh, also, what's the loudness like of the spinning and reading?

    Thanks,
    Craig.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slough
    Posts
    439
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    18 times in 17 posts
    • kungpo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P6T SE
      • CPU:
      • i7 920 @ 3.90 Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 6x 2GB Corsair DDR3 1600
      • Storage:
      • 2x WD AAKS 640GB RAID0
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 260 GTX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 1000HX
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2x LG L1952S
      • Internet:
      • 3MB ADSL
    On a side note, have you considered RAID0 with two 250GB disks? Whilst a little more expensive than a single 500GB, performance (using hardware RAID - ie intel Matrix) will be way better. Especially with newer (ie faster) drives.

    I have 2x 250GB WD Caviar SE in a RAID0 and way out performs the same disk in a single disk configuration.

    Don't know about the 500GB disks, but my 250s are dead quiet, although do get a little hot.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked
    14 times in 13 posts
    • Craig321's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8P67 Pro
      • CPU:
      • i7 2600k
      • Memory:
      • 4x 4GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB OCZ Vertex 3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX480 1536MB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair HX
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2410
    Yeah, I have considered RAID 0 very much. 250GBx2 in RAID 0 as main disk(s) and then a 500GB single for backups (unless of course it is possible to do RAID 0 twice in the same machine?).

    My problem with RAID 0 is the fact that you increase your chance of loosing your data if/when your drive breaks due to there being 2 disks instead of one.

    I could sort the above by doing an exact mirror of everything on the RAID0 onto a single 500GB.

    Is RAID 0 possible twice in a machine? I wouldn't mind 2x250gb main and mirror that onto 2x250gb backup, then if or when I messed up windows or the drive(s) gave up I could just set the second RAID to master and be back up and running nice and quick.

    Thanks,
    Craig.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Seagate 7200.10 500 GB
    By Paras in forum SCAN.care@HEXUS
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2007, 08:18 PM
  2. Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 80gb (ST380215AS)
    By streetster in forum SCAN.care@HEXUS
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24-11-2006, 03:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •