[SOLVED] 2.5" or 3.5" hdd?

[GregP74]

I'm not entirely sure about the drive setup in my PC.

When I was buying hardware a couple years ago I ended up getting a pair of m.2 SSDs. One for Windows and programs and one for my data files. I didn't want any extra noise so I didn't add any mechanical drives.

Of course shortly after that I started thinking those things don't last forever, I'd better keep that data on a mechanical drive as well, so I picked up a 4tb usb 3 external drive that everything gets backed up to once a week.

I recently did some pretty major upgrades but I'm still using the same SSDs.

One of them is getting kind of full so I started offloading stuff to the external drive. That got me thinking maybe I really would be better off adding a mechanical drive to the computer. I've got plenty of room for 2.5" or 3.5" drives and I'm thinking about what my best option would be. I'm sure a 2.5 would use less power. Would it be quieter? Any other benefits to one vs the other?

 

[freercurse]

In my experience the difference is negligible, except 3.5 have greater capacities

 

[USAFRet]

If its a desktop, get a 3.5".

Power consumption difference is maybe 2 watts.
Running 24/7, actual read/write the whole time...the 3.5" costs an extra $2/year.

In addition, the 3.5" is more likely to be 7200RPM vs 5400RPM.

 

[GregP74]

What about the noise factor? Vibration?

 

[USAFRet]

What about the noise factor? Vibration?

No difference.

 

[GregP74]

Well then I guess it's just a matter of what I can get a better deal on!

 

[GregP74]

So looking at my options here. This is mostly going to hold photos, music, and old documents. I won't have any programs installed on it.

Would the Seagate Barracuda be a good bet? The Western Digital Black gets good reviews too but is nearly twice as pricey. Is it more than what I really need?

 

[USAFRet]

The baracuda is fine

 

[GregP74]

Thanks

 

[USAFRet]

I am using 3.5 SSD on my PC.

There is no 3.5" format SSD on the current market.

 

[geofelt]

A ssd is more likely to be reliable with no moving parts.
It will also be quieter.
With 1tb ssd devices available reasonably, that is what I would use.
A HDD costs less per gb and is a decent solution if you are storing large sequential video files.

2.5" hdd devices are usually intended for laptops where battery savings is most important.
To that end, they will usually be 5400rpm. Some 3.5" HDD devices are also 5400rpm.
That is ok for storage, but not good for actively used data.
Stick with 7200 rpm for performance and better ye. any kind of ssd for performance.

Neither a ssd nor a HDD will last forever.
But, a ssd is likely to become long obsolete before it ever wears out.
There are utilities that can measure the remaining life of your device.

 

[GregP74]

A ssd is more likely to be reliable with no moving parts.
It will also be quieter.
With 1tb ssd devices available reasonably, that is what I would use.
A HDD costs less per gb and is a decent solution if you are storing large sequential video files.

2.5" hdd devices are usually intended for laptops where battery savings is most important.
To that end, they will usually be 5400rpm. Some 3.5" HDD devices are also 5400rpm.
That is ok for storage, but not good for actively used data.
Stick with 7200 rpm for performance and better ye. any kind of ssd for performance.

Neither a ssd nor a HDD will last forever.
But, a ssd is likely to become long obsolete before it ever wears out.
There are utilities that can measure the remaining life of your device.

Interesting. I'd always read that the limited number or read/writes to the SSD makes it not as good of an option for storing your data files for a longer term.

I'm probably looking for something in the 4tb range, so that kind of puts an SSD in the "too expensive" range. Been looking at the Seagate Barracudas but I've seen some reports of reliability issues. The WD Blues were recommended also and are about the same price. According to what I'd read their reliability is better but they only seem to have a 64mb cache rather than the 256 on the Seagate. I suppose I could spend the extra $75 or $100 and get the Barracuda Pro or the Black Label WD.

It's funny I haven't read up on hard drives this much since picking out a 120mb Maxtor back in 1991.

 

[popatim]

Avoid drives with 256mb cache. Those tend to be SMR drives and can have write issues, especially when overwriting.

The Blue with 64MB cache is perfect for your needs. Bestbuy may have one in stock or you can use their boxed "Everyday" WD drive. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/wd-des...rd-drive-for-desktops/9026007.p?skuId=9026007

 

[GregP74]

Avoid drives with 256mb cache. Those tend to be SMR drives and can have write issues, especially when overwriting.

The Blue with 64MB cache is perfect for your needs. Bestbuy may have one in stock or you can use their boxed "Everyday" WD drive. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/wd-des...rd-drive-for-desktops/9026007.p?skuId=9026007

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0792G331G/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I was kinda looking at this one. Should I avoid that and stick to the Blue?

 

[popatim]

That would be ok as well.
WD Claims the Black ones are still using the traditional recording method on all the desktop black drives.

I just didn't think you wanted to spend that much money.

 

[GregP74]

That would be ok as well.
WD Claims the Black ones are still using the traditional recording method on all the desktop black drives.

I just didn't think you wanted to spend that much money.

I haven't really decided which one yet but thanks!