Instal Steam
login
|
bahasa
简体中文 (Tionghoa Sederhana)
繁體中文 (Tionghoa Tradisional)
日本語 (Bahasa Jepang)
한국어 (Bahasa Korea)
ไทย (Bahasa Thai)
Български (Bahasa Bulgaria)
Čeština (Bahasa Ceko)
Dansk (Bahasa Denmark)
Deutsch (Bahasa Jerman)
English (Bahasa Inggris)
Español - España (Bahasa Spanyol - Spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (Bahasa Spanyol - Amerika Latin)
Ελληνικά (Bahasa Yunani)
Français (Bahasa Prancis)
Italiano (Bahasa Italia)
Magyar (Bahasa Hungaria)
Nederlands (Bahasa Belanda)
Norsk (Bahasa Norwegia)
Polski (Bahasa Polandia)
Português (Portugis - Portugal)
Português-Brasil (Bahasa Portugis-Brasil)
Română (Bahasa Rumania)
Русский (Bahasa Rusia)
Suomi (Bahasa Finlandia)
Svenska (Bahasa Swedia)
Türkçe (Bahasa Turki)
Tiếng Việt (Bahasa Vietnam)
Українська (Bahasa Ukraina)
Laporkan kesalahan penerjemahan
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.
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.
I myself wouldn't RAID 0 more then 4tb in drives.
SATA 3 = 6Gbps..
Cache isn't all that usefull. Seagate drives are slower in general but have more cache.
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.
and the cache for both is the same... 256MB for 10TB and for 4Tb 128MB
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.