barracuda or WD caviar?

[andyafro]

Hi People quick question.

I’m about to get a hard drive for a new build and was after something fast with 500gb of storage.

Was all set to get a WD caviar 16mb but then recived an email about the Seagate Barracuda 32mb cache. The WD is £62.29 and barracuda £70.50 so not a massive price difference just wondering which is the better deal and does the 32mb cache give the barracuda an edge on the caviar? You do get 2 years more warranty with seagate which is nice.


http://www.microdirect.co.uk/(16566)500GB-Western-Digital-Caviar-SE16-SATA-II.aspx
http://www.microdirect.co.uk/ProductInfo.aspx?ProductID=24106&source=MDnewsletter

 

[sturm]

Whats the drive going to be used for: main system drive or storage.
If storage then I would just stick with the WD. If its a main system drive then I would give the barracuda a shot and see how the 32mb does.

I have always used WD drives and had good luck. Only 1 drive has failed and that was due to an electrical compadre.

 

[ausch30]

I would go with the Seagate 7200.11, all newer drives from all the different manufacturers are very similar in performance but I like the added security of the 5yr warranty.

 

[zodiacboyscorp]

I purchased the 7200.11 and am bery pleased with it.

My friend has the aaks series of WD.

Speed wise his is faster transferring huge files gb or more. Mine seems to access files quicker. So huge files AAKS and everything else the 7200.11 seems to have a slight edge. Also the 7200.11 is quieter. Didn't test temps between the two.

 

[Kamrooz]

Seagate hands down.

Reason? Performance wise they are quite similar with their own strengths. But I've lived with with many different hard drives. So far...the only company that hasn't had any dead drives on me is seagate. I've had two seagate drives that have been running for 6 years in a raid 0. Still flawless, I've had half of my WD drives die. Also got 3 more Seagate drives..2 purchased about 8 months ago. One 3 years ago. All still working perfectly.