Seagate Expands Barracuda Series With 5TB 2.5" HDDs, Embiggens FireCuda SSHDs

Not open for further replies.


Jul 31, 2012
I have several Seagate Barracuda hard drives and have never had a single issue.

However, irrespective of the price -- @5400 RPM and only an 8GB NAND cache, I'm not interested.

Eric Swenson

Mar 16, 2013
A 2TB 7200rpm SSHD with 128GB would be perfect for a steam library drive. It could hold the 1 to 3 games you use most commonly in cache. Or an OS and 1 to 2 apps or games.

8 GB??? 2007 called and they want their flash back.


Mar 18, 2014

SSDs don't really drastically improve a game's loading time. Very little of the loading time in games is actual retrieval of data. Once all the pertinent data is moved to RAM or vRAM, that's when the real work begins, like decompression, rendering, etc. The actual time spent moving data from one piece of hardware to another during loading is pretty minimal compared to all the other work that's being done during loading.

Furthermore, an SSHD only caches the most frequently accessed files, and this typically takes 5-7 iterations before it decides to cache certain files. And more specifically, a game might store the data for each level in separate files. Which is to say, you would have to load a particular level 5-7 times before you start seeing any loading time improvements, if ever. Not brilliant.

For use as an OS drive, yeah, these are awesome. Windows accesses the same files on boot every time, those get cached, and you get greatly reduced boot times. But these are just not that important for gaming. Unless you only play one level over and over again from your games. You'd be much better served to get a high-performance hard drive like a WD Black, or just go full SSD. You could even just get a small 120GB SSD for under $50 and use Steam Mover (free program, pretty useful, check it out) to move your currently played games there until you're done with them. That's a great inexpensive way to improve loading times.

But again, data transfer itself is really the least of what makes up actual loading times anyway.


Dec 17, 2008

Probably here:

A 4TB Samsung 850 EVO will set you back $1,499, whereas Seagate said the BarraCuda will retail for a mere $55-$85 depending on capacity.


Seagate is the least reliable brand of hard drives followed closely by western digital.
I stay away from those brands.
Samsung hitachi and Toshiba are what I usually look for in hard drives.


Senior Editor
Feb 24, 2015

Actually, the price is still listed in the article (as another reader also astutely noticed) and it has not been altered (we would've put an edit tag on the article if we did). Seagate provided the expected price at retail, and it also caught my eye as incredibly low. Personally I suspect they are missing a "1" in the price, as in $85 - $"1"85, but I sent an email to confirm the price guidance. Seagate representatives indicated that is, in fact, the price they expect at retail, though they have yet to list an MSRP. Time will tell; they are expected to hit the e-tailers any day now.
If 3.5" drives don't drop in price. It looks like my media server may be getting an upgrade of several 5TB 2.5" drives. Hard drive prices have been stale for a long time now. A 5 TB 7,200RPM costs a little more than I paid 2 years ago and a 4 TB 7,200RPM drive has only dropped $15.


Oct 15, 2016
wish they'd launch a SSD + HD in 1 unit. offering 256GB SDD + 1TB HD capacity would make most laptop users very happy. speed of an SSD for the OS and apps, plenty of space to save media files


May 11, 2010
So no 9.5mm drives??? wtf is wrong with you seagate. most enclosures only accept 9.5mm, and I've already got 2TB's in there from like 3 years ago. Please give me something I can upgrade to.

Reference please ! .... Is this conclusion based upon forum posts, personal experience or actual data analysis for consumer drives used in a consumer environment ?

And no, not consumer drives in a server environment (irrelevant) where necessary consumer protection features like head parking make such drives unsuitable for server usage. Head parking is what protects a drive from a vibration like a "desk bump" where head can hit and damage the platter. This protection feature is immensely valuable in a consumer / business environment but useless in a server environment.

On the other hand, since drives are rated for 250 - 500k parking cycles, employing consumer protection features in a server environment is a bonehead move as wil the heavy I/O, those cycles will be burned up in a matter of months.

Here's "real data" for RMA'd consumer drives used in a consumer environment. Data is recorded and analyzed for drives RMA'd after between 6 and 12 months after purchase. Specific model numbers w/ < 100 unit sales are excluded as individual model data is considered statistically unreliable due to inadequate sample size.

Brand - Failure Rate - % failure then current analysis period ( % failure previous analysis period)

- Seagate 0,60% (contre 0,68%)
- HGST 0,81% (contre 1,16%)
- Western 0,90% (contre 1,09%)
- Toshiba 0,96% (contre 1,34%)
Frankly, the numbers are so close as to make brand choice almost insignificant ... over 12 months, Seagate has a average of 6.40 failures per 1,000 units and WD is 9.95 per 1000 ... either way, pretty good odds; 99+% of the time, you won't be sending anything back. Where i do care about the numbers is in the specific model numbers that fail.... so it's not a matter of brand failure but model no. failure with some models approaching 5%. I'd look to avoid anything over 2% (twice average) thereby balancing performance with reliability ... higher speed drives (7.2 / 10k rpm) drives would be expected to fail more then 5.4k

Top 5 failed drives

- 4,90% Toshiba 3 To DT01ACA300
- 2,86% WD RE 4 To WD4000FYYZ
- 2,33% WD Blue 250 Go WD2500AAKX
- 2,23% WD Black 4 To WD4003FZEX
- 2,20% WD Red 750 Go WD7500BFCX
Also important in drive selection is replacement policies. Our last two drive failures occurred back around 2005 or so ... back when we were using tape drives for backup. One was on our main CAD station (SCSI system). Called in the RMA in the early afternoon, replacement drive was delivered before 10 am next morning. I had to 'secure' the shipment with a credit card, they never charged it cancelling the charge the next day when the RMA'd drive as returned in the same box replacement arrived in. Shipping (2 day) was free but I did pay an "upgrade" cost for the ON delivery .. was about $6 IIRC

The other drive, (WD Black IIRC) had no such option. As they explained ... they sent me a mailing label, I boxed and shipped it, once it arrived it would be examined do "determine eligibility" and, if deemed eligible, I would be sent a replacement. Not willing to have a box down that long, I bought a replacement. The RMA'd drive arrived 12 days later.

This matters much less today as with HD costs so low, keeping a spare or mirrored drive on hand is a "no brainer" if
you can't afford to have a drive down. We keep mirrored drives so if something dies, no downtime. But we also keep spare HDs that are used in a docking station for off-site data storage. Mirrored drives are nice but don't help after a burglary or fire. We cycle our drives out .... after 4-5 years in the box, they are replaced and relegated to off site data storage. I have some HDs that were retired from off-site storage, still working, that I just have nothing to connect them too as long since I had an IDE docking station I could connect them to.

BTW, haven't had a HD failure in about 10 years .... every drive installed (desktops and laptops) in last 5+ years has been an SSHD.

Environment Tips....

1) Keep them cool, in well ventilated cases ...occasionally check surface temps and / or monitor internal temps (~35C).
2) Use sturdy desk furniture; light, flimsy furniture is subject to vibration and "bumps"
3) Use cases that provide for vibration isolation.


We bought 2 lappies few years back ... (side note: we'd find 1 TB inadequate)

128 GB Samsung Pro + 7200 rpm 2 TB drive
2 TB 7200 rpm SSHD

Used them for field engineers, going out and making CAD as-built drawings and ... since they were taking them home, they used for gaming on their own time (as did I and my oldest son). No one could tell the difference. Also did some tests on a desktop

Boot Time SSD = 15.6 seconds
Boot Time 7200 rpm SSHD = 16.5 seconds
Boot time 7200 rpm HD = 21.2 seconds

Yes, benchmarks will show the SSD is somewhat faster and the SSHD is way faster than the HD. The reality is however that the "bottleneck" is the user. Outside of specialized applications like video-editing and Rendering, increasing storage subsystem speed has no impact on productivity.

I paid $1k for a 1 GB HD back when 240MB was considered an enthusiast system :)

I'm still a bit wary of high capacity drives as their failure rate for many models is still as much as 4 times the average, but it is improving.

May 2015
- 4,58% WD Red WD60EFRX
- 3,40% Toshiba 3 To DT01ACA300
- 2,93% WD Green 4 To WD40EZRX
- 2,78% WD SE 3 To WD3000F9YZ
- 2,14% Hitachi Ultrastar A7K2000 1 To

November 2015
- 4,90% Toshiba 3 To DT01ACA300
- 2,86% WD RE 4 To WD4000FYYZ
- 2,33% WD Blue 250 Go WD2500AAKX
- 2,23% WD Black 4 To WD4003FZEX
- 2,20% WD Red 750 Go WD7500BFCX

May 2016
4,32% WD Black 4 To WD4003FZEX
3,59% Toshiba DT01ACA300 3 To
2,88% Toshiba DT01ACA200 2 To
2,39% Toshiba PA4291E-1HJ0 1 To
WD Blue Mobile 1 To WD10SPCX

Not open for further replies.