HDD: speed vs reliability?

modernwar99

Reputable
Jul 9, 2014
1,165
0
5,960
Current Seagate Barracuda is failing after almost 7 years so I'm looking to buy a new drive. The go-to drives it seems are the 1TB Seagate Barrcuda and 1TB WD Blue. The Barracuda is somewhat faster in benchmarks but also has a pretty high annual failure rate. The WD Blue has lower benchmark scores but a really low annual failure rate. Both are the same price so which is more important in your opinion? Faster or lower risk of failure. Btw, I've owned 3 Seagate drives and none of them have actually failed yet, but I would rather not test it.
 


"All the time"? somewhat dramatic? but yes.. I would go WD blue. For either - you will of course ensure you have a backup of anything you cannot afford to lose.. just assume your HDD could fail at any time, with no warning, and backup accordingly.
If you can afford.. and speed is important.. go for SSD (for OS and may be few key items) and HDD for bulk storage capacity where speed not so important.

Cheers

 
Hmm. Welp, I myself own the Bassicuda and I can tell you it is a very scratchy hard drive pretty early on. My older WD is running fine. Before I had a more noise-proof case my Seagate HDD was very annoying.

You could go with the WD Black drive for some more money (~$20) and get good speeds and really good reliability.
 


"somewhat dramatic" says the guy in the Guy Fawkes mask, lol!