Seagate Barracuda vs WD Green

[adavid]

I want to build a new gaming PC, and I want a fairly large hard drive for my game library, so where I live the seagate 2TB is the cheapest 7200 RPM hard-drive, but the WD Green 2TB is about the same price (its a bit cheaper but its negligible). now, because its 5400 RPM I didn't want to go for it, but when I did some reading online, I saw that some people have problems with the Barracuda drives, in terms of reliability.
So my questions are:
1. How unreliable the seagate drives really?
2. Is the WD Green that much slower (compared to the Seagate offering) so its worth skipping?

 

[jdcranke07]

Go for the faster drive if you can. The difference between WD and Seagate is almost none. You have people on both sides that will advocate for either or. I personally use Seagate as I had a WD crap out on me. But, this is also what WD users will say about Seagate as well. Best setup though would be a large HDD and then a SSD either about 120-250ish GB as your boot drive.

Update: There are also SSHD drives that have the SSD portion built into the HDD. They're a bit more expensive than the HDD, but will have a lot more performance for the dollars.

 

[adavid]

Go for the faster drive if you can. The difference between WD and Seagate is almost none. You have people on both sides that will advocate for either or. I personally use Seagate as I had a WD crap out on me. But, this is also what WD users will say about Seagate as well. Best setup though would be a large HDD and then a SSD either about 120-250ish GB as your boot drive.

Update: There are also SSHD drives that have the SSD portion built into the HDD. They're a bit more expensive than the HDD, but will have a lot more performance for the dollars.

I'm already adding a 120GB Corsair Force LS drive, so no need to recommend to add a SSD or a SSHD.
so do you think that they are both the same in terms of reliability, and that I should go for the faster speed of the seagate and forget about it?

anyway thanks for the fast respond.

 

[jdcranke07]

Go for the faster drive if you can. The difference between WD and Seagate is almost none. You have people on both sides that will advocate for either or. I personally use Seagate as I had a WD crap out on me. But, this is also what WD users will say about Seagate as well. Best setup though would be a large HDD and then a SSD either about 120-250ish GB as your boot drive.

Update: There are also SSHD drives that have the SSD portion built into the HDD. They're a bit more expensive than the HDD, but will have a lot more performance for the dollars.

I'm already adding a 120GB Corsair Force LS drive, so no need to recommend to add a SSD or a SSHD.
so do you think that they are both the same in terms of reliability, and that I should go for the faster speed of the seagate and forget about it?

anyway thanks for the fast respond.

That is correct. The faster speed in a HDD translates to faster read and write times. It might not be a huge difference, but I wouldn't go with a HDD with less rpm than 7200.

 

[adavid]

OK thanks for the answer but i'd like to get more input. anyone else has to say something, or should I just keep the Seagate?

 

[das_stig]

WD Blue series 7200rpm 64MB cache drive, don't get OEM as you only get 1 year warrenty.

 

[The Original Ralph]

i've got a WD Green 4 TB HDD and only have one complaint - if it isn't used for 15-20 minutes, it goes to "sleep" to drop current draw, that's the "green" part

speed wise, it's the fastest HDD in my case of 4 HDDs, as far as writing video files to it and copying those files, and i'm usually writing to it from a SSD or copying to a SSD.

As far as long term reliability, i can't say as i've only had it six months

seagate lost me as a customer when one of their drives crapped out 1 week past warranty, but they did offer me their "recovery" svc for $660 + shipping. At that kind of money i'd have thought they have sent over a limo with a couple of hookers to pick it up

fwiw

 

[George Mulligan]

WD blue or black would be better comparison to barracuda. Get green only if you're really a stickler about power draw. I happen to be a fan of WD over Seagate- had a bad Seagate awhile back and WD has not failed me since. But I suppose they're really close. Whatever you do, don't get one of those damn hybrid drives- yuck!

 

[synphul]

It's kind of a poor comparison, the power saving features and slower disc speed (5400rpm) are what makes the wd green "eco" friendly (hence the green designation). They're not the best performing drive but their intended use is for bulk file storage not really as a working drive for os or programs/games. A better apples to apples comparison would be the wd blue drives. I'm not entirely certain of seagate's product line, more familiar with the wd line. Blue are standard consumer drives with a 2yr warranty (retail anyway, unsure of oem restrictions). Some prefer wd (I do), some prefer seagate. After a bad run of 4 failed drives, 2 doa and 2 died within a year I went with wd but ymmv.

Wd black drives aren't necessarily faster but more durable drives than the blue series. They're the non raid version of enterprise wd re series and come with a 5yr warranty same as the re enterprise line. In terms of performance, 7200rpm is much faster and more responsive than 5400 drives. The 5400rpm drives are better for cheap bulk storage, extreme budget systems or more common with laptops where power efficiency counts. (Though most laptops are now using low power and faster than hdd solid state drives).

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

No contest go with the right choice , Seagate.

 

[George Mulligan]

No contest go with the right choice , Seagate.

Huh? You own stock?? lol

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Only 3%

 

[JdotH]

The WD green being a low power drive goes to sleep and takes a bit to spool up. Dont get anything under 7200rpm.
Also, if you are going with Seagate get the 3TB drive as it is comprised of 3x 1TB platters and not 4x 500gb platters as the 2TB is. This means the performance will be better due to having less platters to seek/spool up.

I highly recommend this comparison site:
http://hdd.userbenchmark.com
It gets its data from actual user systems. So all the info is real world and you can filter it as you wish. You will note the WD Blacks are average to slow in comparison to other drives. Also, the pricing of all the drives seems to be up to date (Amazon I believe).

Personally, seeing as how every brand of drive has failure testaments, I just went through the same questioning as you.
I went with 4x 3TB Seagate Barracudas in RAID 10. You get some redundancy plus the speed benefits of striping.

Good Luck & Pay It Forward!


*If you want two 500GB Velociraptors (I needed more space, hence the new Seagates) PM me.

 

[adavid]

GUYS
I want a 2TB drive, so its the green drive or the seagate one. the next one up is a WD red drive, and its much more expensive. there is no blue drive, as it goes up to 1TB only.
if you say that the green drive goes to sleep, when I launch a game located on the green drive, it will take longer to load?
if yes, then should I go for the Barracuda?

 

[adavid]

remember that I dont live in the US, so my options are much more limited compared to other places.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

GUYS
I want a 2TB drive, so its the green drive or the seagate one. the next one up is a WD red drive, and its much more expensive. there is no blue drive, as it goes up to 1TB only.
if you say that the green drive goes to sleep, when I launch a game located on the green drive, it will take longer to load?
if yes, then should I go for the Barracuda?

I own 2 of the Seagate drives , they are very reliable.

 

[JdotH]

Yes, the WD green Drive will take longer to load games and their maps.
Check out the website I posted above. You will see it rates low in the speed rating list.

What are the prices for the 2TB Seagate & slso the 3TB Seagate where you live?
If you can, get the 3TB!!!!!!!

 

[adavid]

Yes, the WD green Drive will take longer to load games and their maps.
Check out the website I posted above. You will see it rates low in the speed rating list.

What are the prices for the 2TB Seagate & slso the 3TB Seagate where you live?
If you can, get the 3TB!!!!!!!

Guys,
I did a little bit more looking, and it seems like going from 2TB to 3TB (seagate drives, not the greens) is fairly cheap (about 15 bucks in my currency). if the 3TB ones do actually have less platters, will they be (somewhat) more reliable?

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Seagate drives are reliable.

 

[JdotH]

According to a rather long and indepth Amazon Review....there is only one 2TB Seagate Barracuda worth owning. They made several 2TB versions & its hard to guarantee which version you will get. The 3TB dont have issues & do have less platters/do not have inherent latency thus. As far as reliability, it really is a crap shoot. It more often then not comes down to how the drive was treated/shipped. G-Shock kills drives. So....if you can, back up or RAID your stuff.

 

[George Mulligan]

If your choice, based on availability, is Seagate Barracuda (2TB or 3TB) vs. WD Green, get the Seagate. No reason to have the Green power idle hassles. When looking at performance, look at speed (hopefully you're looking at 7200RPM, not 5400RPM).

 

[adavid]

OK guys from all the input, I decided to go for the 3TB seagate barracuda drive.

 

[George Mulligan]

Only 3%

as if you'd still be here!

 

[synphul]

I'm sure seagate have some good products, just after 4 consecutive failures it left a bad taste in my mouth. It's been awhile ago, but since switching to wd haven't had any reason or incentive to go back. Usually wd black and re enterprise have up to 4tb but are more expensive and may not be in your area. If it's between those two, I'd pick the seagate and roll the dice. The wd green isn't a great performing drive for an everyday working drive nor was it intended to be. It's a cheap, slow, eco friendly bulk storage drive. Just like the red are better suited for nas setups and purple are geared more toward video surveillance and dvr type operation. The green just won't give you much performance when using it outside the scope of it's design.