[H]ot - Retail Seagate 4TB (Four 1TB platters) $169.99

[Bees]

The MSRP for Seagate's new 4TB HDD using 1TB platters is over $200, while the OEM price is ~$190.

Using code EMCYTZT3213 brings the retail version down to a scant $169.99.

Sure, it's no $140 for a 4TB which was listed recently, but for around 35 bucks off a new product, I'd say that's a great deal.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=22-178-326

 

[zmhaha]

tempting.. but only 2 year warranty... larger drives tend to has a higher failure rate

 

[pwrusr]

not too shabby a price for a retail drive. I'd never buy a OEM drive from newegg after they did a really shotty job of packing them. At least with the retail drives you're going to have good packing in the retail box so even if newegg doesn't pack well it'll still arrive in once piece

 

[Antiflash]

Seagate did a pretty good job obfuscating the RPM for this drive. I was about to assume it is a 7200 drive as their 3TB, 2TB and 1TB drives (the ones that use 1TB per platter) but they actually don't mention it anywhere. It is not even mentioned in the data sheet!
A closer look comparing Data rates from the smaller 1TB per platter dirves with this one confirm that this is a slower drive.
For example the the Average Data Rate, Read/Write (MB/s) decreases from 156 to 146. And the Max Sustained Data Rate, OD Read (MB/s) goes from 210 to 180.
I think because of that it is we would have to assume this is not a 7200rpm drive.
Not a big deal because for this capacity and used for storage that is not that important.
What bugs me is that they try to obscure that little important fact. Their marketing with "The power of One" is that all drives serves all purposes you only shop the required capacity. But this clearly shows that some times you have to sacrifice performance in order to get higher capacities.

 

[rflcptr]

tempting.. but only 2 year warranty... larger drives tend to has a higher failure rate

Source?

 

[Xinmosni]

The item photos suggest that this is a repackaged Barracuda (7200RPM) kit, but I'd confirm with Newegg before jumping >_>

Item description says nothing about speed other than "low power consumption", which to me is about as deal-breaking as Western Digital's Intellipower bullshit.

 

[ReTiCuLeX]

I had this for 3 days and it died on me today. This is just having it plugged in overnight with a fan blowing over it to cut on the heat. mind you the cover was off the drive. wouldn't recommend after that.


Posted from Hardforum.com App for Android

 

[ravx25]

Yeah I think that's going to be somewhat common on those. I'm having to warranty mine (damned newegg and their 30 day return policy). Mine developed bad sectors and became unusable in about a month. I'm going to have to make sure I don't get a refurbished one in return as well, but I don't know how I will be able to tell.

 

[A15G]

Yeah I think that's going to be somewhat common on those. I'm having to warranty mine (damned newegg and their 30 day return policy). Mine developed bad sectors and became unusable in about a month. I'm going to have to make sure I don't get a refurbished one in return as well, but I don't know how I will be able to tell.

Most of the time there will be a sticker on it. I once RMA'd a bad drive and received the same drive with the sticker "Refurbished" on it. I simply told them no, and had them sent me a new one w/ free two day shipping.

I find it quite ridiculous that they send refurbished/recertified hdd's in place of your broken one. WHY?????

 

[ravx25]

Most of the time there will be a sticker on it. I once RMA'd a bad drive and received the same drive with the sticker "Refurbished" on it. I simply told them no, and had them sent me a new one w/ free two day shipping.

I find it quite ridiculous that they send refurbished/recertified hdd's in place of your broken one. WHY?????

I suppose...because they can. It's a game of numbers and some will say something, most won't.

I'll keep an eye out for the sticker though b/c having only been a month old I will demand a new one. Thanks for the tip.

 

[octoberasian]

If you had to decide, this (retail) or an HGST 4TB (which I can find for $210 at B&H)?

Because, not only this forum but other sites, even my own friend who used to use Seagate drives (2TB and 3TB), have complained about the high failure rates of high capacity Seagate drives even when brand new.

And, this is an entirely new Seagate drive with 1TB platters.

 

[Xinmosni]

^ for reelz? Hitachi/HGST always, imo, but definitely HGST over this any day of the week (as long as apples to apples, or in this case 7200RPM non-enterprise drive vs 7200RPM non-enterprise drive).

 

[Lateralus]

^Ugh...when will people learn about Seagate? Crappy reviews are crappy for a reason.

 

[odditory]

tempting.. but only 2 year warranty... larger drives tend to has a higher failure rate

really? where's the study on that, I must've missed it

 

[LurkerLito]

I must be lucky then, I have bought a few 1.5TB and 3TB segates and they are all running fine. 2/3 of the newer 1.5TB have 1 bad sector and an older 1.5 TB (about 2 years old IIRC) has like 2 or 3 bad sectors. The 3TB ones are perfect.

While I would still by Seagate drives to install one into my server or main machine, I always go through a very long test before I put data on them. I use HDSentinel and do a low level read/write test when I get a drive. That takes at least 8-12 hours or more before I format them and can use them. Then HDSentinel monitors all my HDs on my main machine and servers when they are on. If I didn't do that I wouldn't trust any drive regardless of manufacturer.

That is a great price for a 4TB drive. I don't need them yet so I'll be passing on this one.

 

[Avalanche]

Seagate did a pretty good job obfuscating the RPM for this drive. I was about to assume it is a 7200 drive as their 3TB, 2TB and 1TB drives (the ones that use 1TB per platter) but they actually don't mention it anywhere. It is not even mentioned in the data sheet!
A closer look comparing Data rates from the smaller 1TB per platter dirves with this one confirm that this is a slower drive.
For example the the Average Data Rate, Read/Write (MB/s) decreases from 156 to 146. And the Max Sustained Data Rate, OD Read (MB/s) goes from 210 to 180.
I think because of that it is we would have to assume this is not a 7200rpm drive.
Not a big deal because for this capacity and used for storage that is not that important.
What bugs me is that they try to obscure that little important fact. Their marketing with "The power of One" is that all drives serves all purposes you only shop the required capacity. But this clearly shows that some times you have to sacrifice performance in order to get higher capacities.

It's 5900RPM

 

[Xinmosni]

So basically a WD Red in terms of performance (see: slow), sans NAS features?

 

[zmhaha]

Source?

what source? 2 year warranty is on the page.
A drive fails if and only if one of the platter fails.
A larger drive tend to have more platters.
W/o any prior statistics on the survival rate of WD hard drive platters, we may assume the survival probability of each platter is nearly identically and independently distributed.
Therefore, a larger drive, which tend to have more platters, tend to fail sooner than a smaller drive, which tend to have less platters. Notice the word "tend",

 

[requiem99]

The problem is that Seagate apologists pop up every time common sense is threatening to break out. I've happily been Seagate Free for the last 6~ years and loving it. Haven't had any HDD failure in a long time.

 

[mls1995]

The problem is that Seagate apologists pop up every time common sense is threatening to break out. I've happily been Seagate Free for the last 6~ years and loving it. Haven't had any HDD failure in a long time.

same here... I won't buy Seagate anymore. They already fooled me once.

 

[odditory]

what source? 2 year warranty is on the page.
A drive fails if and only if one of the platter fails.
A larger drive tend to have more platters.
W/o any prior statistics on the survival rate of WD hard drive platters, we may assume the survival probability of each platter is nearly identically and independently distributed.
Therefore, a larger drive, which tend to have more platters, tend to fail sooner than a smaller drive, which tend to have less platters. Notice the word "tend",

:facedesk: