Im thinking to buy Seagate Barracuda 2TB which has 7200 rpm and much cheaper from wd black.But im afraid of their reliable as everyone blame them for it.Is seagate that bad?Thanks in advance
1. It has roughly the same failure rate as the WD Black, with the SSHD doing slightly better
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/954-6/disques-durs.html
0,45% WD Black WD2003FZEX
0,43% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST2000DX001
1. It has roughly the same failure rate as the WD Black, with the SSHD doing slightly better
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/954-6/disques-durs.html
0,45% WD Black WD2003FZEX
0,43% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST2000DX001
The Seagate sshd's are quite simply not worth the money.There is very very little benefit to having a 8gb ssd cache
With the increasing market penetration of the SSD, a lot of users have now had the chance to upgrade their PCs. Now we all know while SSDs offer massive benefits in terms of performance, they have always lacked in one area - capacity.
A situation like this left most power users using an SSD for their operating system, while still running a secondary mechanical drive for storage and games. A typical setup such as this would allow the OS to load very quickly, while leaving you stunned at how long it took to load a game. With the introduction of the Desktop SSHD, Seagate has again switched up the game, offering a substantial performance boost to those of you in this situation.
Now, if you are one that chooses to use a single drive for your operating system, and have held onto your standard desktop HDD for the benefit of capacity, the Desktop SSHD is calling your name. The 8GB of NAND cache in conjunction with Seagate's application optimized algorithms should offer a tremendous performance boost, and again the more you use, it the faster the drive will get, as it learns how you use your system.
In every case seen here today, the Seagate Desktop SSHD excels, whether it be a synthetic point and click benchmark like HD Tune or ATTO, or even application traces via PCMark 8, the drive just performs.