add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Seagate Barracuda vs. Western Digital Caviar Blue

TestBuilds
  • 86 months ago

Both seem to be around the same price at 1 TB, but more people seem to go to with the WD Caviar Blue. Which one would you guys say is better, and why? Any links and accounts of personal experience are welcome.

Comments

  • 86 months ago
  • 1 point

According to PassMark (http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_list.php), the WD Caviar Blue 64MB 1TB is rated at 1143.

The Seagate 1TB is rated at 1176, sometimes more. There are many entries for that specific Seagate model. Which is why I trust "Seagate ST1000DM003-1CH1" (1176) and the "Seagate ST1000DM003-9YN1" (1249) as being more accurate than the other numbers represented there.

However...

http://www.overclock.net/t/1333135/seagate-barracuda-st1000dm003-vs-western-digital-blue-wd10ezex

http://www.yinfor.com/blog/archives/2013/01/western_digital_caviar_blue_1t.html

Hope those links help.

  • 86 months ago
  • 1 point

I think the blue is a joke personally.

If you have a storage situation where speed doesn't matter. Get the caviar green. If you are wanting to run an OS off of it, get a caviar black.

I can tell you our own experience with the 2TB models is both the WD caviar black and the enterprise WD models WAY WAY WAY outperform the Seagate Barracuda enterprise models. (Real world testing, transfers of 300-500 GB.

The Caviar blue is considered an "in between" model. Master of nothing I think it has too many trade offs to be considered for an OS or storage drive.

  • 86 months ago
  • 2 points

Well I mean if I had an SSD for programs, but the HDD for video file storage, since I do video editing.

  • 86 months ago
  • 1 point

Well, Caviar Blue is pretty good from the benchmarks, and so is the Seagate Barracuda.

The Caviar Black is pretty good too. The thing is, mechanical hard drives have great limitations. Which is why SSD Caching is such a great solution. Fast OS, files, everything.

  • 85 months ago
  • 1 point

But with storage of 500+gb of random video files I don't think ssd caching is worth it... Just store everything except for those huge video files on the SSD and forget caching.

  • 85 months ago
  • 1 point

Well, SSD Caching only caches into your SSD your most used files. Say you watch a video file once every month, and there are other files you access over 20 times daily.

The files you use most will be on the SSD, and will be accessed at SSD speeds. However, those files you don't use a lot will be on the HDD.

This is gonna help because your OS (because you read and write to those files often) are gonna be on the SSD, meaning your system performance is gonna be higher. If you access your games frequently, you'll also see your game files at SSD like speeds, although I don't think you'd really see any real benefit from keeping your games on SSDs; I'm not sure if any meaningful performance gains would be noticed from the game files being on the SSD. Now, your OS being on the SSD might have a huge impact.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube