Guest
News
  •  News
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2011-09-07T11:11:23Z

3TB Hard Drive Round-up: Hitachi, Seagate, WDIf you're currently in the market for a large capacity hard drive, you've come to the right place. Today we take a look at four of the latest 3TB drives to hit the market, from Hitachi, Seagate, and Western Digital. Although each HDD offers the same amount of storage, there are some distinct differences between them. Read on to find out what separates these products from one another, and then you can examine the performance numbers we recorded from each drive after running them through our benchmark gauntlet...

3TB Hard Drive Round-up: Hitachi, Seagate, Western Digital


Western Digital AV-GP, Caviar Green, Hitachi Deskstar, and Seagate Barracuda XT

Sponsor
beelsebob
2011-09-07T12:53:41Z

Wow, a site that claims to be about hardware reviews that doesn't know the difference between GiB and GB, or that Windows misreports GiB as GB... Nice work there.

Dave_HH
2011-09-07T13:31:22Z

99% of the population has been referring to Gigabytes with the letters GB and we're well aware that Windows reports capacity on a 1024 base, versus what manufacturers list. This is an age old discrepancy that has been around for a very long time. Not sure what you're point is or why the need to split hairs and be so snide.

Chainzsaw
2011-09-07T13:33:11Z

@beelsebob


Not too sure where your getting at that, I looked at the article and it looks good.


I wouldn't mind getting the WD caviar green - it may be the slowest, but you don't need fast access for movies and stuff that's just in storage. Not to mention it's one of the cheaper options, plus it should run slightly cooler as I believe those green drives have variable speed between 5400 and 7200RPM.


HD's are so dirt cheap now...its crazy. I believe almost anyone now can have a cheap NAS/RAID box for storage (which 5 years ago would be a huge investment).


BTW good article Marco.

rrplay
2011-09-07T14:15:17Z

Thanks for the solid review ! and what actually like the most about it is there is more than enough information provided to comfortably decide.Depending on the drives actual [type of data stored] some of the decision would likely be more influenced by the margin of pricing at the time of purchase. I can think of quite a few savy users that would give up the small performance gains with the Seagate to save the $30 and get the WD Green.a $20-25 margin dif and it would most likely be the Seagate all the way.Still amazing to have 3TB HDs at these prices.

BLowe
2011-09-07T15:05:56Z

Including power consumption would be nice.. a few watts difference could mean a lot more than $20/year difference. I hate that all drives say "green" on the box but none seem to include how many watts they burn waiting to read/write.

zwei_zucker
2011-09-07T15:12:56Z

@ Dave


Don't waste your time for pointless comment like this ... anyone knows in 2011 that manufacturer advertise capacity in decimal multiples and Windows use binary multiples, Keep on writing good articles like this instead, You and all HH's team ! ;)

lax
  •  lax
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2011-09-07T15:46:47Z

Informative piece.  For those in the consumer electronics design biz,  it would be valuable to have sound power level data in addition to power consumption.


I'm curious about the vertical axis on the ATTO graphs.  I don't believe the results could really be 140000 MB/s.  Gotta be a typo.


 

LBowen
2011-09-07T15:49:29Z

Thanks for the HD Round-up; I still have that Vertex and 3TB WD Green I have yet to install as I need to get some SATA Cables still.

Dave_HH
2011-09-07T15:55:56Z

lax wrote:


I'm curious about the vertical axis on the ATTO graphs.  I don't believe the results could really be 140000 MB/s.  Gotta be a typo.





That error has been corrected.  The vertical axis indeed had a decimal point in the wrong place in the spreadsheet.  The charts have been corrected now.  Thanks!  [:)]

PaNtsMan
2011-09-07T18:27:48Z

'Here Here' to that!


And not just because of what it would cost per annum in $.

CSands
2011-09-07T18:37:39Z

This round up is appreciated. Page 2 shows the Hitachi Deskstar listed at $129 though the article mentions several times that the price is $179. Suspect the $129 price is actually for the 5400 RPM model, but if it were for the 7200 RPM model tested, it would make the decision much harder, even with the shorter warranty period.

realneil
2011-09-07T18:39:25Z

I have a question. A few years back, Western Digital started making their less expensive high capacity drives with a twist. They suddenly didn't work in RAID configurations. Their response to people's questions about it was that they should buy (much more expensive) enterprise class drives if they want that capability.


As far as I know. Seagate didn't do this, and I never heard of Hitachi doing it either.


So my question is: The four drives that you reviewed this time, are they functional in a RAID environment? Witch are, and are not?


I like the Seagate drive so far, because of it's better warranty. If it will work properly in a RAID setup, that makes it the better choice for two reasons.

Manduh
  •  Manduh
  • 77% (Friendly)
  • Advanced Member
2011-09-07T20:25:37Z

Great article!


I need to find me a good, yet affordable 1-3TB HDD for my lappy. Any suggestions?


Maybe I should just chuck this laptop out and get a desktop again so I can actually heed all the great advice already given on HH.

AKwyn
  •  AKwyn
  • 71.2% (Friendly)
  • Advanced Member
2011-09-07T21:25:40Z

Hmmm.... I wonder what would happen if I buy two of those Seagates and run them in a RAID 0 mode?