Seagate ST4000DM000 or Seagate ST4000VX000, which one should I buy?

[Akr706]

I need a HDD for my home PC. Stuck between these two. Which one should I go for?

Seagate Barracuda ST4000DM000 OR Seagate SV35 ST4000VX000 ?

Skipped the 3TB ones as I have heard that they have a high rate of failure.
Seagate ST4000DM000 and Seagate ST4000VX000, both cost almost same, SV35 being $3 costlier.

 

[joex444]

They're essentially identical, the SV35 is ever slightly better. The 3TB failure rate is largely from a big data server farm that used non-enterprise drives in an enterprise setting. I'm not convinced that we can draw any conclusions about the failure rate of the 3TB drives from that, though based on my signature I think you understand that I'd never encourage someone to go with a smaller drive.

 

[Akr706]

They're essentially identical, the SV35 is ever slightly better. The 3TB failure rate is largely from a big data server farm that used non-enterprise drives in an enterprise setting. I'm not convinced that we can draw any conclusions about the failure rate of the 3TB drives from that, though based on my signature I think you understand that I'd never encourage someone to go with a smaller drive.

Thanks for the reply. I got confused between these two because of their different speeds. Barracuda is a basic one and runs at 7200 RPM while the SV35 runs at 5900 RPM. So shouldn't Barracuda be faster?

 

[Akr706]

Anybody?

 

[Chayan4400]

7200 RPM means the platters spin faster, which usually means faster access times. However, the difference is often negligible if using the HDD as secondary storage (OS on SSD). Try to avoid Seagate altogether, as their overall failure rates are much higher than WD or Hitachi. The WD Red 3TB should do well.

Those 3TB results are from servers, but they are still relevant. If you were comparing them against a server grade WD Re then it would be obviously biased.

But no, we're talking about the Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001, which is a desktop HDD, being compared against the likes of the WD Red, which is a NAS oriented HDD.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($82.88 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Toshiba 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($89.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $172.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-01-08 10:43 EST-0500

The Seagate has a failure rate of 43.1%. The WD Red 6.9% in the same conditions. That alone is enough to justify the extra $30 for the Red.

 

[XistenZ]

7200 RPM means the platters spin faster, which usually means faster access times. However, the difference is often negligible if using the HDD as secondary storage (OS on SSD). Try to avoid Seagate altogether, as their overall failure rates are much higher than WD or Hitachi. The WD Red 3TB should do well.

Those 3TB results are from servers, but they are still relevant. If you were comparing them against a server grade WD Re then it would be obviously biased.

But no, we're talking about the Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001, which is a desktop HDD, being compared against the likes of the WD Red, which is a NAS oriented HDD.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($82.88 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Toshiba 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($89.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $172.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-01-08 10:43 EST-0500

The Seagate has a failure rate of 43.1%. The WD Red 6.9% in the same conditions. That alone is enough to justify the extra $30 for the Red.

Where did you pull that enormous failure rate percentage from? (Seagate, 43.1%)
When looking at this graph from backblaze:

Clearly Seagate did have a slightly higher failure rate in 2014, they don't specify why but I'd assume it's because of those dreaded 3TB drives. The rate then drastically dropped, while WDs rate is climbing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you do have a source for it then we're clearly looking at different ones...
From my own experience the past 15 years, Seagate boasts a whopping 0% failure rate, while WD is in the lead with 100%. Every single WD drive I've got has failed, the most recent a 4TB Red with only 3 weeks of service. I'm still using one of the older Seagate drives @250GB, it's probably 10 years old.

Personal experience is worth nothing in the big picture of course, but I can't let you bash on Seagate without any source for it.

 

[Chayan4400]

7200 RPM means the platters spin faster, which usually means faster access times. However, the difference is often negligible if using the HDD as secondary storage (OS on SSD). Try to avoid Seagate altogether, as their overall failure rates are much higher than WD or Hitachi. The WD Red 3TB should do well.

Those 3TB results are from servers, but they are still relevant. If you were comparing them against a server grade WD Re then it would be obviously biased.

But no, we're talking about the Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001, which is a desktop HDD, being compared against the likes of the WD Red, which is a NAS oriented HDD.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($82.88 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Toshiba 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($89.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $172.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-01-08 10:43 EST-0500

The Seagate has a failure rate of 43.1%. The WD Red 6.9% in the same conditions. That alone is enough to justify the extra $30 for the Red.

Where did you pull that enormous failure rate percentage from? (Seagate, 43.1%)
When looking at this graph from backblaze:

Clearly Seagate did have a slightly higher failure rate in 2014, they don't specify why but I'd assume it's because of those dreaded 3TB drives. The rate then drastically dropped, while WDs rate is climbing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you do have a source for it then we're clearly looking at different ones...
From my own experience the past 15 years, Seagate boasts a whopping 0% failure rate, while WD is in the lead with 100%. Every single WD drive I've got has failed, the most recent a 4TB Red with only 3 weeks of service. I'm still using one of the older Seagate drives @250GB, it's probably 10 years old.

Personal experience is worth nothing in the big picture of course, but I can't let you bash on Seagate without any source for it.

I was referring to the 3TB ST3000DM001 model in particular, not Seagate as a whole: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive-q4-2014/