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

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

If 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

-3
+ -

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.

+2
+ -

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.

-1
+ -

@Dave_HH: He is probably referring to the fact that Giga is a SI-standardized internatinal prefix that MEANS something. It actually has a certain, deifinitvie meaning, that is not up for specualation or interpretation. It simply means a million (ten in the ninth) - Or rather, a million times what it stands before. 1GB IS one million Bytes. Just as a GHz is one million Hz. Just as a GW is one million watts. This is, actually, seventh grade curriculum. It isn't hard.

Someone created ANOTHER standard and claimed that One gigabyte was a 1024 megabtyes, which was a 1024 kilobytes which was...etc. This was, and have always been wrong a fact that IEC, who issued the new "standard" admitted themselves, by effectively cancelling it in 1999 - In other words, since 1999 - twelve YEARS, there has NOT been a standard claiming a Gigabyte is anything other than one million bytes.

In twelve years, it is safe to say that anyone who tests storage devices should have had ample time to adjust, IF they had at all been using the wrong standard in the first time.

Linux knows this. Apple knows this. Microsoft fucks it all up, as is their habit - show them a standard, and they are happy to incorporate it just a little bit wrong.

If you want to do it the wrong way, at least label it correctly. The IEC way of calculating byte prefixes as a function of 2 in the n-th has since 1999 (again, TWELVE YEARS)een known as kibibytes (KiB), mebibytes (MiB), gibibytes (GiB,) tebibytes (TiB) etc.

It is not splitting hairs informing you that you are giving your readers informationtly which is undoubtedly, and indisputably wrong. And I can fully understand him being snide when you do this for a living, but haven't kept up the last twelve years. ;)

0
+ -

MrGA, I'm done with this painfully obvious point that you're beating into the dirt here. Everyone knows this and it is assumed regardless.

0
+ -

By the way, all references changed to TiB and GiB, and the pricing table on the last page notes cost per GiB (formatted capacity) with a footnote that GiB is ~ = to 1.074GB.... and no one gives a rat's ass except for you two knuckleheads. :)

0
+ -

But then what would the world be without us?

Well, at least without MS an too many others mislabelling stuff, it would be much easier to make people understand why their 2 GiB of stuff didn't fit unto a 2GB pen drive, or why "every file I send from my Mac to a windows user gets corrupted! It's missing some megabytes" isn't a corruption issue.

Generally speaking, people "knowing" something that isn't true only serve to make them ignorant, which too often seems to cause them to be very irrational and hot-headed. Doing occasional CS work sometimes feels like being locked in a room with creationists. Guess we all have our hangups. ;)

Kudos for fixing it up though.

0
+ -

MrGA:
But then what would the world be without us?

Yes, the world needs people picking fly S*H*I*T out of the pepper. A noble tradition that has led us to the wonders of political correctness.

We, (the people who are here all of the time) have always understood what they meant, (go figure) and you're taking your little piece of knowledge and pounding it down everyone's throats as your own little crusade doesn't make you any smarter than the editorial staff. It's just solid proof that you're a PITA.

In case you haven't noticed, there are a whole crapload of websites that express themselves the same way as we do/did. You should go forth and conquer!

Your cause awaits!! (see-ya!)

 

0
+ -

MrGA:
it would be much easier to make people understand why their 2 GiB of stuff didn't fit unto a 2GB pen drive

Cause the number of sectors is not always the exact amount, but it is close. I mean we could market it exactly the way it is, but what would be the point with today's marketing at stake.

MrGA:

or why "every file I send from my Mac to a windows user gets corrupted! It's missing some megabytes" isn't a corruption issue.

Don't know. I have never heard of an issue like that; maybe HH can help you out on that.

0
+ -

TaylorKarras:
MrGA:
or why "every file I send from my Mac to a windows user gets corrupted! It's missing some megabytes"

Don't know. I have never heard of an issue like that; maybe HH can help you out on that.

The point he was making is that Windows based computers report and actually measure file sizes differently than Macs do. The way that Macs do it is 'the proper way' and that gives a Mac user license to pick Win-7's Fly Sh*t out of the Pepper if they're so inclined.

He's just picking at people Taylor. He's the guy that always got the crap beat out of him on the playground at the elementary school.

0
+ -

Looking forward to the day I can pack 15 of these in my old md1000 and turn it into a tapeless tape backup system.

0
+ -

@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.

0
+ -

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.

+2
+ -

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.

0
+ -

'Here Here' to that!

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

0
+ -

For the Green one: standby/sleep is just 0.80W, idle is 5.5W and read/write operations pull just 6.0W . Note, howver, that in "stanby/sleep" the WD Green drive parks it's head. Also, it dos this way too often, meaning those 300k cycles are getting used up WAY too fast if you out it in something like a home server.

0
+ -

@ 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 ! ;)

0
+ -

@zwei_zucker: WIndows uses binary multiples, but they have NOT been called Gigabytes since 1999. IEC then relized it's error in making a "double standard", and renamed the binry multiple system to Gibibits, Mebibits etc. The corret capacity in the "Windows-system" is thus Gibibits or GiB. Not Gigabyte og GiB Microsoft just isn't very up to speed.

But hey, ANYONEknows that, right? ;)

0
+ -

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.

 

0
+ -

lax:

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!  Smile

-1
+ -

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.

0
+ -

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.

+1
+ -

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.

0
+ -

The Seagates still have a very high failure rate when compared to other HD manufacturers, infact Appple just recently started recalling systems which shipped with Seagate drives. I would still go for the Hitachi, as I have for years (atleast until WD messes them up) As long as you don't cover up the "don't cover this hole" they are exceptionally reliable. I used to build computers which were moved allover the country in trucks and vans and never had a single HD failure. My server which has 3 nearly 10 year old Hitachi's which had run for atleast 8 years without shutting off (only been shut down the last 2 years unless I need to access data on it). My point, Who cares about the warranty if you never need to use it. Can't say that about the Seagates,

0
+ -

RDeed:

The Seagates still have a very high failure rate when compared to other HD manufacturers

Funny... I have a Seagate HDD and I have never managed to see it fail; if it does then I'll be desperately worrying about finding a way to recover the data.

Seriously, 5 years I've had that thing and it has not managed to fail... The only reasonable explanation is that I must of been lucky back then.

 

0
+ -

TaylorKarras:
I have a Seagate HDD and I have never managed to see it fail

I have four 7,200RPM 750GB Seagates and a 1TB Seagate. One of the 750's failed when it was brand new and Newegg replaced it right away for me.

I also have four older 400GB Seagate drives. They also run at 7,200RPM, and I just put them all together in a RAID 0 configuration in a Dell Precision 390 that someone gave me. After I find an adapter (the video card has a weird plug on it) for it's video card, I can start using it for something.

All of them came with a 5 year warranty and I've had no serious problems with them at all. Seagate did release a firmware update for the four 400GB drives, and I applied it to all of them, but I had no issues before or after that with them. I remember when they were having quality issues with their drives, but I also remember them standing behind them and replacing them with updated stock.

1 2 Next
Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment
Username:   Password: