PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on WD Caviar Black 1TB?


Pages : [1] 2

ChaoticNick
02-07-09, 09:01 PM
I've had it with my old Maxtor 500gb. Takes way too long to install anything and funny noises are making me nervous.:(

So, I need a new one, such as this:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=4034139&sku=TSD-1000WD

I was also considering a deal on a Seagate 1.5tb for $106, but I'd rather have a faster drive and not deal with the firmware stuff I heard about.

I mainly will be installing and playing a bunch of games on it, so opinions on this or another 1TB ~$100?

CaptNKILL
02-08-09, 12:40 AM
That's probably the fastest 1Tb drive you can get right now but Seagates 7200.12 1Tb should be out soon and it'll be a screamer because of the insane platter density (500Gb per platter).

XP_GUN
02-09-09, 02:13 AM
While were still on the subject. Whats the difference between the "Caviar Green 1TB" and the "Caviar Black 1TB"

ChaoticNick
02-09-09, 02:46 AM
The green is slower but more optimized for power savings and efficiency, while the black is for performance.

logan
02-11-09, 04:34 PM
I have two WD1001FALS in a software raid5. No performance issues or anything like that, but they're a bit more expensive than 1TB Seagate drives (although who wants a Seagate drive right now?). I got one a month ago and the other early last week. The second is showing fluctuations on Seek_Error_Rate (100<=>200) on a daily basis, not sure what to make of that, but I assume it's not good since the other isn't doing it. I'm not worried yet, but I'll give WDC a call if it starts happening several times a day.

nekrosoft13
02-11-09, 07:27 PM
While were still on the subject. Whats the difference between the "Caviar Green 1TB" and the "Caviar Black 1TB"

Green is for enery efficient, and switched between 5400RPM and 7200RPM

logan
02-11-09, 08:52 PM
I sent WD an email and got back:
I apologize, but we do not support third party programs associated with testing performance of Western Digital hard drives.
Which is about what I expected (eg. nothing helpful). I don't know why this always has to be so hard.. Oh well. If it dies, it dies. Hopefully this happens either well before or long after my remaining Seagate drive goes, so I can get a replacement in before my raid goes with it.

ASUSEN7900GTX
02-12-09, 12:49 AM
you think seagate has gotten that firmware/disk dies problem solved for the .12 line?

well i just got me a 1TB black wich is gonna be for OS and gaming and i got two WD 1TB GP for storage and other stuff so i hope this black will give me a little boost over the now XP i have on the other 1TB GP disk or as it was before on a 8mb 250gb samsung.

anyways i hope these will live long enough :)

XP_GUN
02-12-09, 02:48 AM
Green is for enery efficient, and switched between 5400RPM and 7200RPM

Know if you can turn that off and always have it at 7200RPM?

LordJuanlo
02-12-09, 03:30 AM
I have two WD1001FALS in a software raid5

You need at least three drives for RAID5

j0j081
02-12-09, 04:32 AM
I have the 640GB Caviar Black and it is crazy fast. In some games I play the map load times are so fast it doesn't even feel like anything loaded.

CaptNKILL
02-12-09, 07:29 AM
I'm slowly piecing together a new HTPC and I'm thinking of swapping out a couple of my drives and replacing them with some faster ones.

I can't make a decision though...

640Gb WD Black or 500Gb Seagate 7200.12?

I'd go for the Seagate but the access times seem pretty weak compared to WD drives in the few reviews I've seen. Usually in the mid 15ms range where as the WD drives are usually in the 12-13 range.

I really wish more sites would do reviews of the 7200.12.

mullet
02-12-09, 10:26 AM
WD 640Gigobitez

SLippe
02-12-09, 10:32 AM
*Currently Unavailable*

Newegg? :D

logan
02-12-09, 10:58 AM
You need at least three drives for RAID5
I never said I had only two drives, just that two were WD1001FALS.

Muppet
02-13-09, 02:07 AM
I'm slowly piecing together a new HTPC and I'm thinking of swapping out a couple of my drives and replacing them with some faster ones.

I can't make a decision though...

640Gb WD Black or 500Gb Seagate 7200.12?

I'd go for the Seagate but the access times seem pretty weak compared to WD drives in the few reviews I've seen. Usually in the mid 15ms range where as the WD drives are usually in the 12-13 range.

I really wish more sites would do reviews of the 7200.12.

The 640 WD's are lightening fast. I really can't say enough about just how good they are. Pretty quiet too.

CaptNKILL
02-14-09, 03:42 AM
Well, I gave in and bought one of the 500Gb Seagate 7200.12s :o

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148395

I just couldn't resist the benchmark numbers I was seeing. Mostly because of the huge improvement in write speeds and file copy times. At only $65 they're a steal.

I only bought one though. If some other amazing drive comes out in the next couple months I'll buy that to replace the rest of my drives and move my OS and games over to the fastest drive. :p

EDIT: Some reviews:

http://en.expreview.com/2009/01/07/review-of-seagate-500gb-barracuda-720012-hard-drive.html/3
http://forums.hexus.net/reader-reviews/157418-new-seagate-7200-12-500gb-st3500410as-mini-review.html
http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tt-hardware.com%2fmodules.php%3fname%3dNews%26file%3d article%26sid%3d12427

For what its worth though, all the reviews and tests I've seen so far are referring to the ST3500410AS where as the drive I bought is the ST3500418AS. I figured higher number means its a newer revision with less problems or more speed. Hopefully I made the right choice :p. The only difference I can find between the two on Seagate's website is that the noise levels are supposedly slightly higher on the 418, which doesn't really matter to me.

logan
02-14-09, 12:12 PM
I don't know how you could buy Seagate with the problems they're having..

From what I've read elsewhere, the only difference between the specs on the 7200.11s and .12s is related to noise or vibration.

nekrosoft13
02-15-09, 03:01 AM
For what its worth though, all the reviews and tests I've seen so far are referring to the ST3500410AS where as the drive I bought is the ST3500418AS. I figured higher number means its a newer revision with less problems or more speed. Hopefully I made the right choice :p. The only difference I can find between the two on Seagate's website is that the noise levels are supposedly slightly higher on the 418, which doesn't really matter to me.

ST3500410AS vs ST3500418AS
We wanted to make a note about 7200.12 model numbers, since this has generated quite a bit of confusion in our forums and other enthusiast forums. We found it strange that after having the 410AS model out for around a month Seagate also released the 418AS model with nearly identical specifications (the only real difference being acoustic performance). We contacted Seagate many times about this, and the following is the most up-to-date information we can provide you with.

The 410AS model adheres to industry standard "low halogen" specs and thus is more environmentally friendly than 418AS. The 410AS model also produces less noise than the 418AS model. That's about all we know, and to date Seagate has done little to distinguish these models from each other in their marketing material, which is odd.

http://www.xcpus.com/GetDoc.aspx?doc=123&page=1

CaptNKILL
02-15-09, 05:58 AM
ST3500410AS vs ST3500418AS
We wanted to make a note about 7200.12 model numbers, since this has generated quite a bit of confusion in our forums and other enthusiast forums. We found it strange that after having the 410AS model out for around a month Seagate also released the 418AS model with nearly identical specifications (the only real difference being acoustic performance). We contacted Seagate many times about this, and the following is the most up-to-date information we can provide you with.

The 410AS model adheres to industry standard "low halogen" specs and thus is more environmentally friendly than 418AS. The 410AS model also produces less noise than the 418AS model. That's about all we know, and to date Seagate has done little to distinguish these models from each other in their marketing material, which is odd.

http://www.xcpus.com/GetDoc.aspx?doc=123&page=1

Oh well. I never had a problem with too much halogen. :lol:

Thanks for the info Nekro. Coming from a 7200.10 with 160Gb platters I think any drive is going to be a huge improvement. I mostly just wanted to test out the latest in storage technology as opposed to grabbing a WD drive that's been around about a year.

I don't know how you could buy Seagate with the problems they're having..

From what I've read elsewhere, the only difference between the specs on the 7200.11s and .12s is related to noise or vibration.

They aren't really having any problems any more. They fixed the firmware for the 7200.11s. The difference between the 7200.11 and 12 is that the platter density has doubled which should give a good boost in speed. Plus, only having one platter means there is less that can go wrong, less power consumption, less heat and less noise.

If anyone thinks this is a really bad choice I still have time to cancel the order since it won't go through until after the weekend.

CaptNKILL
02-15-09, 07:31 AM
I'm having second thoughts about this drive now. :lol:

The more reviews I read the more I'm concerned about access time. I think I might switch this out for the WD Black 640Gb. I'll still need another drive some time to replace the rest of mine so maybe by then we'll know more about the new Seagate drives.

EDIT: Bah, about an hour ago I could still cancel my order. Now I can't. :|
I'll email them to see if I can still do it. If not, I guess I'll give the Seagate drive a shot. :p

logan
02-16-09, 02:50 PM
They aren't really having any problems any more. They fixed the firmware for the 7200.11s.
So quick to trust a company that took months to publicly acknowledge the problem to begin with, then fumbled with the initial release of the firmware to "fix" the issue.. Here it is! Oh no, it's gone. Here's another! Serial number tester breaks. Then the ISO starts changing without notice or explanation.

I'll believe the problem is fixed when my only remaining ST31000340AS is still working 2 years from now.

CaptNKILL
02-16-09, 07:58 PM
So quick to trust a company that took months to publicly acknowledge the problem to begin with, then fumbled with the initial release of the firmware to "fix" the issue.. Here it is! Oh no, it's gone. Here's another! Serial number tester breaks. Then the ISO starts changing without notice or explanation.

I'll believe the problem is fixed when my only remaining ST31000340AS is still working 2 years from now.

I've been using Seagate drives for a very long time and I've never had a problem so I'm cutting them some slack.

If this drive causes problems for me down the road, you can bet that my opinion of them will change.

CaptNKILL
02-19-09, 02:36 AM
Well I got my Seagate 7200.12 today and reinstalled windows.

It seems pretty fast though I haven't had a chance to test much.

In HD Tune and HD Tach the access time is surprisingly high... like 15.9ms. :(

The transfer rates are extremely high though. The high is around 135Mb\sec with an average of 106 and a low of around 65. By comparison, my 7200.10 320Gb drive (which has 160Gb platters and was one of the fastest drives you could get 2 years ago) has an access time of 13.4 but transfer rates of around 82 max, 64 average and 38 low.

To my surprise though, HD Tach reports that its one of the "410" drives, not the "418" that I ordered. I guess they're just interchangeable. I'm not really concerned with it. SMART is reporting good health in the mid 90s and no errors.

Seems like a solid drive so far.

Dreamweavernoob
02-19-09, 07:08 PM
dsfsdfsdfsdf