Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
and all 2.5 inch HDD are slow anyways. For Desktops and it wanting to be a HDD for alot of storage, use 3.5 inch HDD with 7200rpm and at least 64MB cache buffer.
Why WD Black? You can buy the better WD Red drives for basically the same pricing.
I would suggest...
2TB or under, get the SeaGate.
4TB or more, get the Western Digital, latest model (2016 or later).
There's a difference with the larger drive sizes on the latest models. The WD Black Edition has much better technology features, adding to performance and recovery. It's not just what comes in a standard drive, they have improved upon it.
Both are the same speed: 7200RPM
Both can have the same size cache: 256MB
WD Black Edition has a much better 5 year warranty.
Baracuda is better for storage, while WD Black Edition focuses more on gaming performance.
Real world results:
Black (4TB - 2016) Read Average = 162 MB/s (peak 200 MB/s)
Barracuda (4TB - 2016) Read Average = 145 MB/s (peak 186 MB/s)
(12% performance difference)
Black (4TB - 2016) Write Average = 167 MB/s (peak 205 MB/s)
Barracuda (4TB - 2016) Write Average = 127 MB/s (peak 170 MB/s)
(31% performance difference)
Black (4TB - 2016) 4K Read Average = 0.97 MB/s (peak 1.1 MB/s)
Barracuda (4TB - 2016) Read Average = 0.67 MB/s (peak 0.8 MB/s)
(45% performance difference)
Black (4TB - 2016) 4K Write Average = 4.89 MB/s (peak 6.35 MB/s)
Barracuda (4TB - 2016) Write Average = 1.79 MB/s (peak 2.2 MB/s)
(173% performance difference)
Black (4TB - 2016) IO Mixed Average = 72.8 MB/s (peak 83.6 MB/s)
Barracuda (4TB - 2016) IO Mixed Average = 64.5 MB/s (peak 76.4 MB/s)
(13% performance difference)
It starts to have a huge leap in performance for 4K content and extremely large files.
Comparing it against SSD, you won't get close, but as for comparing HDD it's one of the top end for gaming performance. I've done my research and tested them before using one myself. I like both brands, but if you want better, depending on the price, then go for the WD Black Edition. It's my personal fav for gaming upon and lasts for years. Optionally: You could even add a SSD cache on top if your motherboard supports Intel Smart Response Technology.
WD Red is a NAS (Network-Attached Storage) drive, designed for RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) servers. Ideal for sharing and backing up data over a network. I would not recommend it for gaming or general purposes. It's designed for prolonging data life, rather than increased performance. Unless you wanted to purchase like 8 of them and RAID them up together in a locally to host your gaming files for some reason?
As for the FireCuda, I haven't personally tried it. I tend to avoid SSHD, as if I wanted to do that, I would make my own via two separate HDD and SSD, merged with Intel Smart Response Technology. FireCuda does however have a 3.5 inch model in 1TB or 2TB for desktop gaming.
The Blue drives are fine for what they are. They just wouldn't be a good fit for games.
Extra features on HDDs are kinda moot, they barely make any difference - performance increases matter, sure, but not when the cost difference is so much. And data recovery, well, if you care about data you're storing, you should use other methods (RAID 1, or even better RAID 5.)
The price difference between the Barracuda and the WD Black is significant, and you aren't addressing it; The WD black costs ~160 pounds for 4TB, the SG Barracuda costs ~80 pounds for 4TB. You're talking a price increase of 100%, for ~34% performance increase on average.
The cost doesn't justify the performance. At least for me personally.
4K read/write has nothing to do with 4k CONTENT, or anything 2160p related; it's a few blocks of data that are 4KB in size are writen/read from the disk. While it is an important metric, in regards to read, write doesn't mean much; The pagefile will be on the SSD (which many should have as an OS drive), so it doesn't need 4K write speed, it only needs read speed, which as your numbers have shown is 45% better, for double the price.
You would be better off getting a 1TB (or even 2TB for the price of the WD black) SSD.
A HDDs speed isn't that important, it's either fast enough, or it's not. For the majority of games, a SG Barracuda is going to perform fine, a WD black isn't going to magically make games that stutter on HDDs work perfectly, it's a marginal improvement.
The only upside of the WD black, in my opinion, that is worth considering, is the warranty (2 vs 5 years.) But even that is a stretch, because of the price/performance of the drive, being so poor.
Just for reference, you could get a 4TB SG Barracuda for ~80 pounds, and a 512GB 660p for ~60-70 pounds, or a 1TB WD Blue SN550 NVMe for ~85 pounds right now, that means that you could have speed, and storage for CHEAPER than a single WD black drive.
Doesn't really matter, SMR or PMR, the performance of either is perfectly acceptable for things a HDD should do, even gaming. (If you have Pagefile, or heavily accessed things on your SSD, which you should, and will have anyway.)
The 256MB Cache versions start at 4TB, afaik.
As you can see above, comparing the prices of the two drives, it just doesn't make sense to get a WD black, when you can get other storage options that are faster, for less.
If you want storage, you should be looking at something else, like a SG Ironwolf, which, even at 4TB, is still cheaper than the WD Black.
In my honest opinion, it's not worth considering the WD Black at all. That's not me hating on the drive, or calling it bad, it's just not worth the money. If it was more competitive on price (say 30-45% less), then it would be a decent option. But you aren't getting enough performance difference, in the areas that matter, to even consider spending that much money on it, there are better drives for the price, and task.
Blue drives are fine, I agree. I would have no qualms using one for storage, or even some games.
Black is faster then Red
Red Pro is faster then ALL other consumer HDDs from WD, except for Gold.
Red is just better for NAS and RAID, it's not required.
Red Pro and IronWolf Pro are some of the fastest consumer HDDs and have decent warranty as well.
But if you do find like a WD Black 2, 4 or 6 TB are a decent price, sure why not.
Seagate Barracuda = junk
Seems to be so on the refreshed lineup, yes, which goes from 4 TB to 10 TB, but then again, the refreshed ones don't even go below 4 TB so saying it starts there is true merely by default; the lineup itself simply starts at that size. The prior lineup went up to 6 TB IIRC, and I believe (may be wrong) only the 6 TB model had that much. I know my 5 TB model and the old 4 TB model are/were 128 MB though.
Blacks aren't for storage though; Blues are.
Nah, I absolutely agree with you here. I own one, and love it, but they've traditionally been overpriced for what they offer. I really miss when the Blues were still 7,200 RPM drives, as they were a much better deal for what they offered.
Part of it is likely because the demand for 7,200 RPM HDDs for performance roles is just shrinking now, especially at smaller capacities (namely, 1 TB and somewhat 2 TB) as SSDs are just putting the squeeze on them there. But, for larger capacities (for a game drive), like 4 TB to 6 TB+, you don't have as many options with SSDs without ballooning the cost even more. They still serve an, albeit shrinking, middle ground at larger capacities at least.
That same concept applies to SSDs. The fastest NVMe SSDs are much more expensive compared to SATA SSDs, and likewise, they won't improve upon your given scenario anywhere near as much either. What you said is just how it goes in tech (diminishing returns when paying up with a certain type of tech).
It won't do a dam thing for your OS or Games.
Most of the Pros of any M2 slot based SSDs are:
> No need for any Cables.
> Ideal for ITX builds and Laptops.
How can you do an NVME to real use?
> When doing heavy tasks that can actually use it, such as recording/editing/compiling of 4K or higher videos, especially when final video is above 30 FPS.
> When working with CAD, 3D-Rendering, or large amounts of hi-res photos in a single session in apps such as Photoshop or similar apps.
Sure, it is opinion, but, in that opinion, a hard drive is a hard drive, the tech it uses isn't going to drastically alter performance in any important metric, it's still going to be slow (in the grand scheme.)
The OPs use case was storage, not games;
So, something like an Ironwolf drive, or Barracuda would be faster than what he has, would have more storage than what he has, and would be cheaper than the WD Black. Which, to me, is worth it. He could get double the storage, for the same price, and have more storage, or have redundancy by doing RAID 1. So he won't lose the data, if it's important.
And, the Ironwolf drives also have 5 year warranty (just saying, because earlier Azza used this as another point toward the WD Black drive.)
WD Black is drastically and noticeably superior to that common model of Seagate in every way.
Not to mention Seagate has poor reliability for the long haul as well as a short warranty to boot.
Both are 4 TB drives, have plenty of samples (6k vs 26k.)
If you look in the speeds that matter, for a storage drive, where things are wrote once, and left;
Sequential read - Black is 12% faster. (This would be for looking at files like images, 3d models, etc.)
4k read - Black is 45% faster. (This would be for random file reading, like a video game does, not many other programs will use this, but still, since it's for storage, and not going to be written to often, worth mentioning.)
This means the black is barely faster where it counts, and isn't worth the cost for gaming.
I/O doesn't really matter, since this is going to be a storage drive, not an OS drive.
And, if you're going to make the argument of writing things to the drive, Sustained writing is what you're looking at, which is going to be 11% faster. Barely going to matter.
The WD Black isn't all you're hyping it up to be.
Yes, the Black is better, superior, and anything else you can say, but it's also twice the price. It doesn't need to be the best thing ever, it needs to be reliable, and it needs to store data. That's the task OP wants.
Reliability always concerns people, and people expect things to last forever, or some stupid amount of time. It's a hard drive, it will fail, faster than other types of drives, because it moves.
If you want data to be safe, I mean really safe, you will look at other methods of storage (again, for the 3rd time now, RAID 1 or RAID 5.)
But, you could also go for the Ironwolf drive, 4TB, 5 year warranty (like that of the WD black), just as fast (in the places that matter, read, not random speeds, since it is storage focused, not speed focused), and it is still CHEAPER.
I don't know the actual numbers of failure of drives, I did a quick search, and I can't find any data on which drives die more; however, the one place that did show data didn't have enough samples in WD drives to be conclusive enough for my liking, however I will say the trend toward reliability did favour them in the 4TB range, but lost to Seagate in the 8TB range.
Still, not enough to conclude, in my opinion.
Though, the failure rate for Seagate drives is only a marginal difference compared the WD drives; 1.51% for Seagate (58,010 samples), 1.78% for WD (661 samples)
Now, there isn't enough sampling from WD to say they're more or less reliable. Though, I would conclude from this, it doesn't matter. If a drive is going to die, it's going to die.
Source ; https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-2018/ - Taken from 2017 Data, since it had more samples in WD drives.
WD Black drives, for the money, just aren't worth it.
Now, if you have the money, want one of the fastest hard drives, and really like WD, then sure, go for it. But anyone that cares about value for money, wants more reliability (opening up the option for RAID 1 / 5 more), they should go for Seagate Ironwolf, or if they're looking for lower performance, slightly cheaper (~20 pound less) should look towards Seagate Barracuda, and WD Blues.
And, no, the Barracuda is not almost as good as a Black. They sure are a heck of a better value for storage, but it's more apt to compare them to Blues, not Blacks, despite the RPM difference IMO, and to be honest, if we're going to use UserBenchMark (I so loathe this generally, but it's probably fine here), according to that, it pretty much loses even to the Blue.
https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Seagate-Barracuda-4TB-2016-vs-WD-Blue-4TB-2015/3899vs3523
I'm not sure why the Barracuda has an insignificantly higher "effective speed" (which is apparently defined as a score factoring it's metrics) when... nearly all of the metrics are lower? Maybe I'm missing something, but it's UserBenchMark so I really don't care. I humored myself of boredom while I was there and looked my drive up.[hdd.userbenchmark.com] But, according to the numbers, you can see it's more apt to compare it the Blue, a drive that is slightly better and slightly more expensive, than to the Black, a drive that is markedly better but more than markedly more expensive.
Is the Barracuda fine for storage? Yeah, it is (I still wouldn't use it due to SMR), but it's not close to what a Black is, which is a bad suggestion for a storage only drive anyway.
I mean, the comparison you were making was between the Barracuda and Black in price there, so I'm not sure what SSDs have to do with it now.
Reasoning that "it doesn't matter if SMR can be bad for performance because HDDs are bad at performance anyway" is a poor argument anyway.
In that case, the Black drive isn't going to be a good option IMO due to being a poor value, especially for storage. It's role is "performance hard hard drive with a premium price". It's like springing for one of the best NVMe SSDs in the Western Digital Black SN850 or Samsung Evo 980 Pro over a standard SSD; sure, it's the fastest in a lot of metrics, but you pay way more than what you get in return in real world results. Some people want that, even though it's "unnecessarily expensive", so that's something you buy just to have something a bit better for a performance role and if you have funds to burn, but not for storage.