Seagate Firecuda vs Western Digital Black for use as Secondary Hard Drive?

Zombie_hunter99

Commendable
Mar 8, 2016
69
0
1,630
Hi everyone, I was wondering what would be the fastest Internal HDD or SSHD that I could get. I plan on using this drive as Secondary Hard Drive to be used to store games, applications, and files. I also plan on partitioning the drive installing Windows 7 and Linux Mint on whatever drive I decide to get. The drives that I currently have a Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB with Windows 10 Installed on it and a Western Digital Caviar Blue 1 TB and a 500 GB Seagate Barracuda and all of them are almost full. I was looking at the Western Digital Black and the Seagate Firecuda drives. Should I get another Western Digital Caviar Blue or Seagate Barracuda? Are there any other drives out there that are faster and more reliable? I do not mind if the drive is loud. Also, Will the 8 GB of flash memory that a lot of SSHD's have make a difference game in loading times if the games are larger than the 8 GB of flash memory? My budget is 80 USD. Thank you, hope you guys can help me.
 
Solution

Sorry, but that drive is way out of my budget which is 80 USD
 
Hi Zombie_hunter99,

Thank you for considering Seagate for your new drive. For your use case we would recommend either the BarraCuda or FireCuda, depending on whether you prefer more speed or capacity.

To answer your question about SSHD load times, The SSHD should load games faster than a typical hard drive even in larger games. This is because many of the most frequently used game assets can be cached.

I hope this helps and happy gaming!

--------------------------------------------
Seagate Technology Official Tech Expert
 


Will the 8 GB of flash memory that a lot of SSHD's have make a difference game in loading times if the games are larger than the 8 GB of flash memory? For Example I have some games that are over 50 GB.
 


No, that's not how the SSHDs work.
The firmware learns, over time, what blocks are used the most. Not the whole game or application.
For instance, if you play a specific level a couple of times, the data for that specific level will probably end up in the 8GB SSD space.
The next level, however, is read at regular HDD speed.
 
So the Seagate Firecuda will be faster then? If, so How much faster? Do know you what the "Vibration Control Technology (VCT), Corruption Protection Technology (CPT), NoTouch™ Ramp Load Technology, High Resolution Controller (HRC), and StableTrac Technology" do in the Western Digital Black Hard Drive and if I really need them? How much performance does the Dual Core Processor add over a Western Digital Blue or Seagate Firecuda?
 


"faster"? Probably not so you'd notice in a use case like that.
If you were using the same data over and over, than those particular things might appear 'faster'. But for a games drive? Probably not.

All the other things you mention? Marketing terms for the same stuff all other drives have.
 


Why don't other drives list those things? Which drive would be better for a secondary drive? I looked on Amazon both drives are about the same price. The Firecuda is newer and has been on Amazon for less time than the WD black and has slightly better reviews but the WD black has more reviews. If the Firecuda did not have the flash memory would it still be faster than the black, or no? Do you know if Seagate drives are more reliable than Western Digital ones?
 


The only reason for the Firecuda IS the small SSD portion. Otherwise, it is a standard spinning drive.
Take Amazon and Newegg reviews with a LARGE grain of salt.

The "WD Black" product line has been around for ages. Doesn't mean that the WD Black sold today is exactly the same drive as the WD Black sold 5 years ago. Technology changes. Often faster than the marketing dept.
 


Just to clarify, I play a lot of multiplayer games, would the maps for those games load faster if they are maps that I play frequently if I am using the Firecuda Drive because of the flash storage?
 


In theory, that's how it is supposed to work
It learns whichever blocks are most often accessed, and that ends up in the SSD cache space. Until later, when something else pushes it out.
 


Similar. They are both 7200RPM.
But that is a meaningless comparison, because the whole idea of the FireCuda line is the SSD cache portion.
Otherwise, it is a standard Barracuda.
 
Hi Zombie_hunter99,

An SSHD should still improve load times in games that are larger than the flash portion. Many game assets are shared between levels, and should see a significant boost during loading. Please take a look at this document for some data. Keep in mind that Killzone is about a ~40GB game in this case and still sees an improvement in loading times.

--------------------------------------------
Seagate Technology Official Tech Expert
https://www.seagate.com/promos/fast-storage/_shared/docs/sshd-gaming-tp685-1-1512us.pdf
 
The reason I asked was because I was wondering if I decided to get the Seagate Barracuda in the event that the Hard Drive needed to load data from the HDD part would the Firecuda's HDD part have the same performance as the WD Black.
 
Solution