Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Zasady dyskusji i wytyczne
Zgłoś ten post
from my experience, the 3 head models have a higher fail rate
750g, 1.5, 3, 6t sizes should be avoided if you can get a slightly larger 1,2,4,8t at a slightly higher cost
and its not just rpm, but also disk size and data density that determines read/write speeds
2.5in are always slower because of the speed of the disk platters
higher data density drives are faster since bits are moving by the head faster
1tb single platter (2 head) drive will have the same performance of 2tb dual platter (4 head) drive
4tb dual platter (4 head) will be faster than the 2 above but not twice as fast, because it will have more tracks per platter and more data per track
I highly recommend having your Operating System run upon SSD (Solid State Drive), but using a WD Black HDD for gaming upon. It will last longer and run smoothly. They have a 5 year warranty, but would last you for 15+ years.
It will however depend on the model number (older models aren't as good) and TB size of the WD Black Edition.
Don't bother with 1TB or smaller size, you might as well get a standard drive instead for cheaper.
Only get a WD Black HDD if 2TB or larger, ideally 4GB.
Look for this model number: WD4005FZBX
Each plate within the drive is 1TB. So a 4TB would be 4 separate spinning plates, which can be accessed at the same time.
The 4TB is the sweet spot, as it jumps from 64MB to a 256 MB cache size. Allowing for much larger file transfers done at faster rates.
It has automatic plate balancing and anti-vibration, so if your PC is bumped around and the drive might be on a slight angle, it will correct the plates inside to be flat again. Giving a much faster performance and optimizing it's reliability.
It also has automatic error correction, so if corruption is detected, it patches and repairs the area. Having spare reserves to replace it with a fresh area.
It has a dual-core processor, for twice the performance of a standard single-core drive.
Seagate and Western Digital are the leaders for Hard Drives. However, the WD Black HDD is designed for gaming purposes and I highly recommend it. You won't be disappointed and it leaves the Seagate HDDs in the dust in comparison. It's extremely good performance and reliability. Just get the 4TB model WD4005FZBX or better, if you do. Avoid second hand ones with previous much older models.
If you only wanted 1TB or 2TB, then I would recommend the SeaGate FireCuda SSHD (Solid State Hard Drive). It's a standard hard drive with a small 8GB solid state cache on top. It will automatically make a copy of your most commonly opened files on the HDD to SSD cache for faster access next time, so if you regularly play the same game all the time, it will end up there and load in faster. That's the drive SeaGate designed for gaming purposes, but they don't have them larger than 2TB.
Both the Baracuda and Black have 256MB cache versions (the Baracuda drives at a lower capacity, making them a better choice imo.)
And the 'more platters access' thing is what every HDD does... it's not special to the black drive.
I boot from the hdd, I play games from it. It loads my OS and games in seconds. You can find them cheap now around $275 for all that performance. It consumes low power. There's even a newer model with 18Tb.
The realitively small issue (1) was a *specific* group of drives in a roughly ~1yr span that *did* have high failure rates. This is not a Seagate issue, both brands tend to have "bad batches" and WD had just gotten to the point of recovery from their last bad batch fiasco (gen1 WD Green failures) around the time Seagate started taking head for their early 7200.10(?) models, specially ones in the odd-TB count, taking more than normal failures. Again, this was specific to a single product line, not all their drives, and mainly to a few select consumer level models. And again, WD has historically had similar or same issues.
Around the same time as this people started paying attention to, and taking about, realibility reports from data centers (2). This is great info, but few people look at it or read into it correctly. On the surface, most data centers reports higher numbers of Seagate failures than any other maker, and on the surface that looks bad. Dig deeper and you find that the Seagate drives are the back bone of the whole operation, are deployed in signifigantly higher numbers, run for longer total hours, transfer more total data, and produce hrs:failure and TB:failure rates perfectly comparable to the competition. Thats because the seagates dont fail more often, they are just deployed in such large numbers that their failures add up to more units.
Point is that there is nothing wrong with Seagates, and WD is prime for their next big screw-up, and if history is anything to go by it should be sometime soon... Both companies make good units, get which ever is cheapest withing a specific performance teir, b/c the difference between a WD, Seaggate, Toshiba, HGST, or Hitachi are nill when all drives are the same spec (size, platter count, Cache size, rotational speed).
There, that simple, no nonsense huge walls of text about perception compared to data. They largely had a much higher failure rate than WDs, but notice how I basically said I'm unaware if that's still a modern issue or not? Strong emphasis on being information from the past.
So.. If you have 100 Seagate drives in use, and 10 die, but you have 10 WD drives in use and 2 die, which one has higher failure rates? Seagate had 10 drives die vs WD having 2 die, so seagate is the worse maker right? But seagate in total had only a 10% failure rate vs WD having a 20% failure rate...
Do you see how the perception, or the way you look at the data, matters now?
I wont argue that by the numbers Seagate has more total failures, they do. Instead I argue, rightfully, that the total number of failures is a pointless metric to look at or count when you are not taking into account the total number of units deployed, the total number of active run hrs, and the total number of bytes transfered.
These are *all* things that are presented by the data centers, and when you look at all the data as a whole you see that big-picture the Seagate drives work harder, last longer, and write more data before failure at a cheaper price than any competitors, which is exactly *why* their drives get deployed in vast numbers and thus *seem* to have a higher total number of failures. They do, but only b/c they vastly out number any other makers drives in real world use. They dont die too quiick, they just die like any other drive but there are 10x more of them and thus 10 more failures.
WD Red Pro
Seagate IronWolf Pro
WD Black I wouldn't even consider anymore.
same... i need for my old computer since ssd is expensive
First of all, Green is a dead series. Green was cycled into the Blue series.
The only true Blue drives in the WD Blue series of HDD are the models of WD Blue that are 7200rpm. The other 5400rpm models of WD Blue are actually WD Green drives.
Doesn't matter what PC it is. as long as the PC is a Desktop and has SATA Gen2 (3.0gbps) then any SATA HDD will do really. They do not require SATA Gen3 to get full speeds, that's only true for most SSDs.