PDA

View Full Version : Seagate ST3250823AS or WD WD2500KS? (250GB)

Rob
10-18-2005, 09:26 PM
Torn between these two. The Seagate is a little cheaper. Which would you get?

Seagate 250GB (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822148065)

WD 250GB (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144701)

:confused:
banGerprawN
10-18-2005, 09:57 PM
WD ftw!
I love mine...
xonik
10-19-2005, 12:01 AM
I'd pick the Seagate for its hassle-free five year warranty, but the WD definitely has the performance advantage. Also consider a Hitachi T7K250 or 7K400--they are as fast or faster than the WD and most likely cheaper.
banGerprawN
10-19-2005, 12:12 AM
I'd pick the Seagate for its hassle-free five year warranty, but the WD definitely has the performance advantage. Also consider a Hitachi T7K250 or 7K400--they are as fast or faster than the WD and most likely cheaper.
Yes, but are they as sexy? It's unlikely...:p
The Hitachis....do they have 16MB cache? And dont tell me google. Im lazy. Help a guy out.
Ultra Wide
10-19-2005, 08:26 AM
I would go with Seagate b/c of warranty, BUT I keep reading that Made in China Seagate 7200.8 are not as reliable as Made in Singapore drives, so I would go for Singapore 7200.8 if possible.

Also, the Seagate is a 2 platter design should generate less heat and noise.
HDBox2d1
10-19-2005, 08:53 AM
HITACHI Deskstar T7K250 250gb
SATA II 300MB/S
Average Latency: 4.17ms
Average Seek Time: 8.5ms
Cache: 8MB

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250gb
SATA II 300MB/S
Average Latency: 4.2ms
Average Seek Time: 8.9ms
Cache: 16MB

Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 250gb
SATA 1 150MB/S
Average Latency: 4.16ms
Average Seek Time: 8ms
Cache: 8MB

Maxtor MaXLine III 7L250S0 250gb
SATA 1 150MB/S
Average Latency: 4.17ms
Average Seek Time: 9ms
Cache: 16MB

I like the WD SE16 (WD2500KS)

The Seagate 7200.8 Has a quicker Average Seek Time than all of them.
Western Digital has double the cache at 16MB insted of 8MB like Hitachi and Seagate.
cyph3r
10-19-2005, 08:58 AM
I have just taken a wd2500ks and I must say that I a little am disappointed of his performances compared with my samsung sp120, if I were to take one of them currently, I would take either a hitachi, or a seagate :cool:
HDBox2d1
10-19-2005, 09:13 AM
Really? Wow, what made you disapointed.. what types of apps did you work with to test the drive.. or..

That sucks.
Archmage
10-19-2005, 11:14 AM
www.storagereview.com

WD 16mb, maxtor maxline III 16mb (I chose this in the 300gb flavor from zipzoomfly)

actually just do a bit of poking around there :)
DougLite
10-19-2005, 12:04 PM
Performance? No question that WD2500KS > 7200.8. Seagate's seek performance quite frankly sucks. Not only that, but Seagate has generally lost their way on buffer performance. Cool/Quiet? I'm going to give an edge to WD here as well. The WD drive will have lower power consumption, Both drives will be essentially inaudible at idle, and seeks will be somewhat louder on the WD, unless you get a Barracuda locked in performance AAM mode.
Reliability? Well, we all know that Seagate is the gold standard in hard disk reliability. However, now that SirKenin has been permabanned, I can say that reliability on WD drives is pretty good without getting trolled ;)
Volkum
10-19-2005, 12:47 PM
I love my WD2500KS drives. With rubber grommets on the HDD cage, I can't even hear them and they work awesome in my RAID0. I've been using WD drives for the past 5+ years and never had a problem with any of them.
aeon
10-19-2005, 01:06 PM
sorry to go a little off topic but has any looked into the new seagate 7200.9 drives??
xonik
10-19-2005, 01:15 PM
Availability is scant, if anything at all. I'm sure that there will be more information about the drives as they arrive, 6 months late :mad:
aeon
10-19-2005, 02:01 PM
well, newegg, zzf and a few other already have them in stock. I just haven't seen many reviews on them yet.
DougLite
10-19-2005, 02:13 PM
Right now, WD is schooling everybody on desktop performance - WD4000YR swept every single desktop DriveMark in the recent review over at SR. I don't think anybody is going to catch them, except possibly Hitachi. However, Hitachi seems content to stick with an 8MB buffer in all but their absolute largest drive.

The 500GB Barracuda on ZZF is quoted for 8.5ms - hopefully that won't turn into 11ms like the "8ms average" figure on 7200.8 did.