Budget build HDD- barracuda, WD blue or green?

Associate
Joined
27 Apr 2009
Posts
592
Hi guys, I'm building a budget rig for my friend for everyday tasks, the only 'speciality' he needs to fulfil is secure storage of hundreds of music tracks because he is a party/function DJ.

Which of the below would you recommend for an everyday build as the OS drive, I was thinking WD Caviar Green because it's got a power saving function and that might be beneficial with it just being a general-use computer. Once they come back down in price later in the year I was going to suggest he gets a second 500G or 1TB drive for his music storage, then he has more security should he get a virus or something.

YOUR BASKET
1 x Western Digital Caviar Green 500GB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache - OEM (WD5000AZRX) **SINGLE PLATTER** £64.79
1 x Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB SATA 6Gb/s 16MB Cache - OEM (WD5000AAKX) £63.98
1 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB SATA 6Gb/s 16MB Cache - OEM (ST500DM002) £61.99

I know 1TB drives aren't a lot more expensive than 500GB but I would suggest to him to get a second drive for music storage once they come down in price, that's why I'm not suggesting to him to get a 1TB drive from the off.

The rest of the config is i3/H61/4GB DDR3/450w PSU
Which would you recommend?

 
Well storage on a HD is never 'secure', because all HD's fail eventually.

But of course he still needs a hard disc, personally I would go for the Seagate.

The WD green has a variable spin speed, it might save some energy but the extra cache is there to try and compensate for the fact that just when you want it, it will be on the go slow. This type of drive is better suited to a server data disc or NAS than a boot drive.

The WD Blue and the Seagate are pretty well equivalent, it's just a matter of personal choice really.
 
I'd go for the WD green myself. It's green, has higher platter density, and it will probably make up the price difference in electricity usage in under a year.
 
Go with a 7200rpm drive as a boot device

The "Green" drives are fine and dandy but at the end of the day it don't matter how you paint it up with fancy wording they are just drives that did not make the grade and are fine for occasional access and data storage devices

my vote - Barracuda :)

EDIT

I know you said the budget is tight but PLEASE try and set your mate up with some sort of external USB device (3.5" or even 2.5" portable) and a backup/rsync routine.
 
Last edited:
I know you said the budget is tight but PLEASE try and set your mate up with some sort of external USB device (3.5" or even 2.5" portable) and a backup/rsync routine.

It's cool, he's got that going, he uses a 3.5 to transfer tracks from home to his work laptop so they're always floating around on more than one HDD at a time. Thanks for your advice!
 
Small SSD for OS and then a raid array for the music which will give the data security he requires.

RAID is not a backup solution, why do people keep recommending it? :confused:

Good solution: Second, regularly updated HD stored somewhere else in the house.
Better solution: NAS stored somewhere else in the house.
Best solution: Second, regularly updated HD stored off-site, at a friends, for example.

I personally use all three solutions for four copies of everything and RAID nowhere to be seen.
 
RAID is not a backup solution, why do people keep recommending it? :confused:

I think because in RAID 1 config it duplicates to a second drive so it's almost a backup solution. That's what I will do with my Mac Pro system..when I get it..for my music production.. just to ensure everything is written twice.

And then backup both of those hard drives also
 
Back
Top Bottom