Caviar vs Barracuda

elpedro · 27 Jun 2009 at 19:49

Looking at the 500GB models of the Barracuda and the Caviar drives.

If going raid 0 with two of either model, which pair will be the quickest.

Seagate - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-206-SE

WD - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-245-WD

jbloggs · 27 Jun 2009 at 19:59

If going raid 0 with two of either model, which pair will be the quickest

I would go for a pair of the 500GB Seagate 7200.12s as they use a single (500GB) platter...

Rroff · 27 Jun 2009 at 20:14

Seagates will leave the WD in the dust for sequential reads... and be comparable in all other aspects.

elpedro · 27 Jun 2009 at 22:07

Awesome thanks.

So despite the additional 16MB of cache, these "Black" editions aren't any quicker than the Seagates and they cost more...

gurusan · 27 Jun 2009 at 22:14

random access times will be significantly faster, reducing loading times. but for file transfers and such the seagates are unmatched.

The cache really doesn't have much to do with it though.

elpedro · 27 Jun 2009 at 22:46

OK Question:

Take transfer speeds out of the equation. Would using the Caviars make the system 'snappier' to use with the better access times?

I would be willing to sacrifice a few MB/s for a system that loaded and responded quicker.

gurusan · 27 Jun 2009 at 22:50

In theory yes, but in practice not too noticeably so. I'd probably get the seagates as 500gb platters are very power efficient, transfer rates are significantly better...and mid 13-sec access time is not too bad.

If you really want snappiness then your best bet is to just forget RAID 0 7200rpm drives and get a 1tb storage along with a SSD setup

Rroff · 27 Jun 2009 at 22:52

The WD have around 10% quicker access times... but you wouldn't notice any difference in realworld useage.

If its access times you want (really really want) - then your best bet is to go SSD or get 3x 500Gig 7200.12s and short stroke them.