LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksPurpose? The WD Caviar Green and Samsung Eco Power are fine for storage, but if you need it for OS/applications, then go for the Caviar Black or F1.
Purpose? The WD Caviar Green and Samsung Eco Power are fine for storage, but if you need it for OS/applications, then go for the Caviar Black or F1.
As someone has already mentioned, avoid Seagate, I had two of their drives die in less than 2 months thanks to the Bios problem and Seagate support is non-existent.
In exchange for the duff Seagate then got a Samsung F1 and it's been a great performer too.
The Caviar Green are the only drives which I find to be bearable unless you isolate them from the case with e.g. foam or elastic suspension. Regular 7200RPM vibrate too much for my liking which results in annoying humming. If noise isn't a concern this is a moot point.Originally Posted by TooNice
Outside of benchmarks, I couldn't notice any performance difference between the Caviar Green and Blue but I did have to put more effort into mounting the Cavair Blue to reduce noise. Having said all of this, I wouldn't want a 1TB drive as the system drive - I'd prefer to have a smaller capacity drive for the OS and have the 1TB drive as secondary storage for media files etc.
Why?
The 1TB drive is likely to be faster, and you want your OS on the fastest drive usually.
I have the Samsung F1 1TB and it's fine - doesn't seem to be hugely fast and it's noisier than my Seagate 320gb, but I'm happy with it. I use a small partition at the front for the OS and large partitions for media towards the back of the drive.
get the samsung its cheaper and more reliable for me
Why? For the exact same reason that you stated - for it to be faster. I use a 80GB partition for the OS and applications, which is fine and will ensure that the apps are the fastest area of the disk (the start) but it also means that if you're accessing the other partitions then the disk is having to jump between the two areas of disk. Okay, it's not going to make a huge difference but given that performance was brought up I thought I would mention it.
But the 1TB drive will be faster than a smaller capacity hard drive, unless you go for an SSD or top Raptor.
We're not talking about a slower 1TB drive here - we're talking about 1TB drives that are fast. Why would you use a slower smaller capacity drive for your system drive?Ideally you would go for a fast system drive of moderate size, and for less important storage space get a slower 1TB drive.
Not necessarily. It depends on the density of the platters. Take the WD WD3200AAKS for example, which uses 320GB platters.
I would be much happier using this as my system drive, and then having a separate 1TB drive to contain backups and then my media files. I don't like the "eggs in one basket" approach of using a single 1TB drive for everything.
These drives have densities of 334 and 500 gb per platter.. you can't get a small capacity drive with higher density or they would no longer be small capacity drives!
Exactly my point - the smaller drive has a lower density and is therefore slowerTake the WD WD3200AAKS for example, which uses 320GB platters.
Has the Spinpoint F1 had a hardware revision with higher density platters? The last time I checked, it was beaten by the 640GB WD Caviar Blue (2x 320GB platter) when it came to overall performance.
It depends on the size of the drive, if you go for a small one you get low density platters. If you go for a big (1TB) one then you get high density platters, which was what I've been saying from the start about going for a bigger hard drive!
Nope, the Samsung F1 1TB beats that drive in most tests. It's not very well optimised for high queue depth though.The last time I checked, it was beaten by the 640GB WD Caviar Blue (2x 320GB platter) when it came to overall performance.
This article included both the Spinpoint F1 1TB (334GB platters) and WD6400AAKS (320GB platters), and although there's not much in it, and the two do swap places between tests, I believe the WD drive to be the (slightly) faster out of the two overall and consumes less power. I realise that there's no much difference between the two, but there's not much in it between many drives.
Anyway, back on topic, the Spinpoint F1 might be the best choice if you absolutely must have 1TB, but if you don't need that much, I would wholeheartedly recommend the WD6400AAKS (WD Caviar Blue 640GB) as a reliable and fast drive.
Funny - I've just been looking into this.
500GB platters are apparently the best available, so the Barracuda 7200.12 seems like a good choice in theory. In practice they seem to have dodgy random access performance and questionable reliability. TechReport has some articles with decent info.
In practice WD SE16 640 seems very popular, but I'm hoping for more 500GB platters from other manufacturers soon because I'm looking to buy around autumn.
Also, on a tangent, someone reckons the Samsung HM160HC is the dog's danglies - http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=264209 - I'm going to get one and put it in my old Powerbook G4.
The new Seagate 7200.12 drives have reportedly very good performance and a 5 year warranty. I've used virtually all manufacturer's drives in 10 years of building systems. Have had to return/replace drives from nearly all of them - the worst probably WD but several of them were from Dell machines.
Not used a lot of Samsungs but I don't remember one failure.
Have you looked at the Samsung F2 EcoGreen (or whatever it's called).
I can't vouch for it as it's not installed yet, but it is a 500GB Platter drive and presumably low noise/power consumption.
This is the only comparison that I've come across: http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/3651/wdvssamsung.jpg. It does seems to have a slight edge over the WD.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
SCAN.care@HEXUS
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote