# Seagate vs. Samsung vs. Western Digital HDD's



## thekl0wn

Here's the options on a 3.0gb/s SATA drives:

Seagate  vs. Samsung vs. Western Digital

Which is going to offer the best reliability?  All offer latency and seek times well within what I need, and all are 16MB cache, and all are priced the same.  The WD & Samsung are 500GB whereas the Seagate is only 400GB.  I _could_ suffer the 100GB loss _if_ the Seagate is the best option for durability.


----------



## porterjw

I swear by WD  It's def. my HDD of choice! I have had nice results with Seagates in the past, but whenever possible I use and recommend WD products.


----------



## SirKenin

For durability, under anything except very light home use, the Seagate will simply destroy the WD, no question.


----------



## thekl0wn

Ever tried the Samsungs?  HDD's is one place I've never used a Samsung product, but I've been satisfied with them in every other realm.

I would tend to lean towards the WD's over the Seagates, as "back in the day" of my PC repair, I replaced more Seagates rather than WD's, but that's not to say that the OEM's weren't putting a higher percentage of SG's in than WD's.


----------



## lucky7

Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST3500320AS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148288
Theres ur 500GB and its 32MB cache, i cant tell u if its good because ive never had it but its what im getting for my new computer.


----------



## SirKenin

I've used all three, sold and serviced all three (and I'm talking in the hundreds and hundreds of drives).

Without a doubt, the WD is the biggest curse of the bunch. Samsung? Meh, they're ok. Some models are very fast and reliable, some are just "meh". The Seagate is definitely the champ overall.

EDIT:  When I say "WD" I mean the Caviar and Caviar SE.  They are just junk.  The RE and the Raptors are really good, although I can't say I'm overly ga ga over this RaptorX that I use in mine.  In my own puter I have a RaptorX, Raptor and SE.  The SE is total garbage, but I haven't had the time to swap it out yet.


----------



## Eternal Rest

I've always bought western digital because they seem to be cheaper and I've never had a problem with one. You get more storage for the price. I've never bought a seagate but I've heard nothing but positive feedback about them.


----------



## Noir

I think those are all good hd, but because a bad past experience with seagate (really 5x give me a headache even i have to switch mb just to know that the problem is from the hd it self even more after i change the hd to the distributor several times and the problem still exist), i dont want to rely on it anymore.
Now i use western digital and its solid and reliable until now.
My vote is western digital.


----------



## pumaking

I have 2 200GB WD Caviar PATA and 1 Seagate 160GB 3GB Sata.

The seagate seems to be a smudge faster.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

pumaking said:


> I have 2 200GB WD Caviar PATA and 1 Seagate 160GB 3GB Sata.
> 
> The seagate seems to be a smudge faster.



After reading about Serial Advanced Technology Attachment processing speeds versus Parallel Advanced Technology Attachments, I think the biggest advantage is the SATA cable size over the PATA.  PATA ribbon cables may have an adverse effect on cooling as they are bulky and can obstruct the flow of air.


----------

