Seagate Barracuda Pro or WD Gold for large capacity HDD?

[Kaihekoa]

I'm looking to upgrade storage space for my game collection and want to get a 10TB hard drive so I can keep most of my games installed. I haven't had a hard drive in any of computers for several years though, but know enough to narrow down the choice to WD Gold and Seagate Barracuda Pro. Of the two brands, which would you go with? Specs are the same and price will be roughly the same.

[Omega]

The reviews I read online all complain about the reliabilaty of the Barracuda Pro. But both of these drives do have a 5 year warranty.

I think it doesn't really matter all that much. I myself would get several smaller 4tb drives.

[tacoshy]

a 10TB WD Gold achieves seq. Read speeds of 270+280MB/s. It is the faster HDD imo and the reliability is also avg betetr with WD then Seagate.

[Kaihekoa]

Originally posted by Omega:

The reviews I read online all complain about the reliabilaty of the Barracuda Pro. But both of these drives do have a 5 year warranty.

I think it doesn't really matter all that much. I myself would get several smaller 4tb drives.

Would you get several smaller ones to RAID them? I have limited space in my case for drives, so I'm really just looking to get one big one.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Originally posted by Omega:

The reviews I read online all complain about the reliabilaty of the Barracuda Pro. But both of these drives do have a 5 year warranty.

I think it doesn't really matter all that much. I myself would get several smaller 4tb drives.

The comparisons to look for as to which one is better....SATA3.0 spped (3gbps vs 6gbps) and esRAM cache (64MB vs 8MB....64MB is better.

[Omega]

Originally posted by Kai:

Originally posted by Omega:

The reviews I read online all complain about the reliabilaty of the Barracuda Pro. But both of these drives do have a 5 year warranty.

I think it doesn't really matter all that much. I myself would get several smaller 4tb drives.

Would you get several smaller ones to RAID them? I have limited space in my case for drives, so I'm really just looking to get one big one.

RAID. No. That kinda goes against the whole reason I would get multiple. In case one dies and you have to RMA you still have the other ones. And the reliabilaty of these high capacity drives is straight up terrible for the most part.

I myself wouldn't RAID 0 more then 4tb in drives.

Originally posted by The Spoopy Kitteh:

Originally posted by Omega:

The reviews I read online all complain about the reliabilaty of the Barracuda Pro. But both of these drives do have a 5 year warranty.

I think it doesn't really matter all that much. I myself would get several smaller 4tb drives.

The comparisons to look for as to which one is better....SATA3.0 spped (3gbps vs 6gbps) and esRAM cache (64MB vs 8MB....64MB is better.

SATA 3 = 6Gbps..

Cache isn't all that usefull. Seagate drives are slower in general but have more cache.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Originally posted by Omega:

Originally posted by Kai:

Would you get several smaller ones to RAID them? I have limited space in my case for drives, so I'm really just looking to get one big one.

RAID. No. That kinda goes against the whole reason I would get multiple. In case one dies and you have to RMA you still have the other ones. And the reliabilaty of these high capacity drives is straight up terrible for the most part.

I myself wouldn't RAID 0 more then 4tb in drives.

IMO 2TB is all we need per Disk drive a maximum until tecxhnology improves for anyhting in higher capacity.

as for the SATA 3.0 3GBps...I think I misread that . I did not have prism lens glasses so it was harder for me to focus and track the screen..but I do see my eror lol.

[tacoshy]

3Gbps is SATA II. 6Gbps is always SATA III not that it would matetr as both are SATA III and second because SATA II is still enough for all consumer HDD's.

and the cache for both is the same... 256MB for 10TB and for 4Tb 128MB

[Omega]

Originally posted by The Spoopy Kitteh:

Originally posted by Omega:

RAID. No. That kinda goes against the whole reason I would get multiple. In case one dies and you have to RMA you still have the other ones. And the reliabilaty of these high capacity drives is straight up terrible for the most part.

I myself wouldn't RAID 0 more then 4tb in drives.

IMO 2TB is all we need per Disk drive a maximum until tecxhnology improves for anyhting in higher capacity.

... Not everyone uses their PC for gaming only.

[Omega]

Originally posted by TheDude:

Originally posted by Omega:

... Not everyone uses their PC for gaming only.

14TB is so last year: https://www.techradar.com/news/this-is-the-worlds-biggest-hard-drive-and-it-can-store-14tb

Git good: https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/3/19/17140332/worlds-largest-ssd-nimbus-data-exadrive-dc100-100tb

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Originally posted by tacoshy:

a 10TB WD Gold achieves seq. Read speeds of 270+280MB/s. It is the faster HDD imo and the reliability is also avg betetr with WD then Seagate.

It is easier to replace a Serman but easier to maintain and preserve a Panzer. Quantity does not always mean quality is what we are saying.

"The more pipes you have in the system, the eaier it is to lug it up"
~Montgumary Scott.

[Kaihekoa]

Originally posted by The Spoopy Kitteh:

Originally posted by tacoshy:

a 10TB WD Gold achieves seq. Read speeds of 270+280MB/s. It is the faster HDD imo and the reliability is also avg betetr with WD then Seagate.

It is easier to replace a Serman but easier to maintain and preserve a Panzer. Quantity does not always mean quality is what we are saying.

"The more pipes you have in the system, the eaier it is to lug it up"
~Montgumary Scott.

Nice analogy haha. I won't be using the drives for anything near their maximum engineered potential, Nonetheless, I think the WD Gold is the Panzer here as it's rated for up to 550TB/year workload versus 300TB/year for the Barracuda Pro. That's nowhere near the actual workload I'll have on them for a game drive, but it's only $15 more expensive than the Barracuda Pro, so I'll go with the Gold.

[tacoshy]

Originally posted by The Spoopy Kitteh:

Originally posted by tacoshy:

a 10TB WD Gold achieves seq. Read speeds of 270+280MB/s. It is the faster HDD imo and the reliability is also avg betetr with WD then Seagate.

It is easier to replace a Serman but easier to maintain and preserve a Panzer. Quantity does not always mean quality is what we are saying.

"The more pipes you have in the system, the eaier it is to lug it up"
~Montgumary Scott.

wD overall had always the higher quality. Of course there a few bad apples but not with the WD Gold if you compare it with the barracuda series.

And sicne their is no needed maintenace your example is bad.

[InfinityJosh]

Why 10 TB for Steam?
You can download every game you own when you want.
A mechanical issue (HDDs usually incur in these kind of issues...)
will force you to throw it in the junk.
I would rather buy several 1TB HDDs, if some will stop working you could still swith to other that work.

Also a Canvio portable HDD would be a good idea too for portability.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

Why 10 TB for Steam?
You can download every game you own when you want.
A mechanical issue (HDDs usually incur in these kind of issues...)
will force you to throw it in the junk.
I would rather buy several 1TB HDDs, if some will stop working you could still swith to other that work.

Also a Canvio portable HDD would be a good idea too for portability.

Cause many games are 30 - 110 GB each and even with 500mbps download, will still take a while.

Instead of 1x 10TB, due to the extra price gap between 8TB and 10TB; I'd grab 2x 4TB or 2x 8TB instead and put them in RAID-0

[Kaihekoa]

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

Why 10 TB for Steam?
You can download every game you own when you want.
A mechanical issue (HDDs usually incur in these kind of issues...)
will force you to throw it in the junk.
I would rather buy several 1TB HDDs, if some will stop working you could still swith to other that work.

Also a Canvio portable HDD would be a good idea too for portability.

Game installs are getting pretty big - GTA V =75GB, Battlefield 1 = 80GB, Shadow of Mordor = 43GB, Destiny 2 = 48GB, NBA 2K17 = 68GB. Almost 315GB for just 5 games, and I have over 1000 games in my collection. My 1TB SSD is nearly full, and I don't want to severely limit how many games I can have installed at one time. Also case space is limited for drives, so I really just want to keep it simple with one big, reliable drive that I won't have to worry about for x years.

Originally posted by Bad_Motha:

Instead of 1x 10TB, due to the extra price gap between 8TB and 10TB; I'd grab 2x 4TB or 2x 8TB instead and put them in RAID-0

Actually, the best value in terms of cost per GB is the 10TB for WD Gold drives or 8TB for Barracuda Pro using current Newegg sale prices. Looking up some reviews, it looks like the WD Gold has some mixed performance: https://us.hardware.info/reviews/7208/10/10tb-hdd-review-five-models-compared-test-results-pcmark8-subscores, so perhaps I'll go with the Barracuda Pro instead.