Samsung 400GB SATA Vs Seagate 400gb SATA

[topgazza]

Comparing the two drives, both with 16mb cache there seems little difference other than a 3 year warranty Vs a 5 year warranty. Appreciate there will be many preferences here, most good, some bad but with the same stated performance specs the Samsungs seem to rate as quieter and cooler. Though the biggest difference seems to be the £23 price difference.

I'm guessing similar reliability in drives these days so logic seems to say "Samsung". Fair assessment?

 

[rpstewart]

No, logic says Seagate - the 7200.10s are significantly faster than any other 7200rpm disks.

Having said that it depends if the performance is worth the price difference, your own budget and requirements will determine that.

 

[stoofa]

Significantly?
I think we have different definitions of that word

 

[topgazza]

Oh, right...because of that perpendicular file access thingy. Seek and access times look the same on the specs but I guess in the real world this will make a diff. I agree budget against benefit is always something to look at and whilst I don't need bleeding edge speed on my HD its always a nice thing to have if the price diff is not to big and if I'd actually notice the difference....

My main use is Internet, games from time to time, WP and DVD burning so its not a huge workload in terms of HD and I do have a dual core AMD and 1gb of dual channel RAM that caters for that sort of thing.

Thanks for responding

 

[Cyber-Mav]

go for seagate, longer warranty is always worth it.

 

[achitophel]

go for seagate, longer warranty is always worth it.

Depends on your priorities. If you google you can find details of a website (with adds advertising competitors, so I can't post it) which compares the noise produced by each. Samsung Spinpoint is the quietest drive by a considerable margin

 

[spb251272]

I'd go for a 320GB Seagate 7200.10 because the price per gb of the 400gb drives is a lot more. It's £74 for the 320gb and £120 for the 400gb, which is an extra £46 for an extra 80gb of storage

You could nearly get 2 320gb drives for the same price!!!

 

[33L]

although the spinpoints are quieter the seagates are hardly loud (yes i know there are reports of loud ones) but i cant hear them in my relatively quiet machine!

The choice is yours!

 

[topgazza]

Ouch Spb !

Good point

2 x Seagate 320Gb 16mb cache @ £74 each

Or

2 x 300GB Samsung 8mb cache drives @ £68 each?

I must confess I like quiet but only £6 for another 8mb cache and a touch more GB...mmmm

Why can't this be simple.......?

 

[CF93]

I'm having the same dilema - Samsung or Seagate.

In the thread I posted, all the posters (ok there have only a been a few) have said go for the Seagate for the extra speed, as the new ones have a different motor to the early ones so are quieter (prob still not as quiet as the Samsung.)

It's just a real shame I found a competitor selling the 320Gb version for £8 (inc VAT but before delivery) less than OcUK (though I haven't actually ordered it yet cause I'm waiting to find out which motor version they have on their stock!)

 

[snowdog]

Samsung for silence
Seagate for performance seagate is silent, but not as silent as samsung...

Personally i'd go for sgate, love the long warranty and its faster (better seek time and better avrg read...)

 

[Lord Alibaski]

I've just got 2 SAMSUNG HD401LJ 400GB SATA2 16MB drives. My pc also contains 3 Seagate 320Gb 16mb cache it was quiet until i put the Samsung drives in now it's noisy as hell. These Samsung drives are noisy but don't get as hot as the Seagates do.

I payed £77 each for the Samsung drives the Seagate ones cost me £64 each. So £13 for the extra 83GB (when formatted) was worth it.

 

[photoshop]

i would say samsung as i like my quiet bliss !