Seagate Barracuda or Spinpoint F2 (1.5tb), only £2 difference

ntg · 19 Nov 2009 at 11:07

I see that those two 1.5tb disks have only £2 difference.

However while the F2 has an access speed of 8.9ms the Seagate says 5.1ms.

Is there any real difference between them?

I am thinking of buying a couple for Xmas.

miniyazz · 19 Nov 2009 at 11:19

I don't know where you're looking, but the Barracuda will not have a stated access time of 5.1ms unless it's a mistype. 8.5 I think is normally quoted for Seagates.

ntg · 19 Nov 2009 at 11:28

Still, which one would you recommend?

CBJ · 19 Nov 2009 at 11:37

Unless I'm very much mistaken the Samsung F2 is a 5400RPM drive and the Seagate Barracuda is a 7200RPM one. On paper at least this means the Seagate will be faster but the Samsung will use less power.

However in addition to the incorrect access time figure, I also can't see where you're getting the £2 difference from. It certainly doesn't seem to be from this site.

osc89er · 19 Nov 2009 at 13:32

CBJ said:
However in addition to the incorrect access time figure, I also can't see where you're getting the £2 difference from. It certainly doesn't seem to be from this site.

I don't see how anyone would be permitted to answer this question...

Vesta_Man · 19 Nov 2009 at 14:04

Seagate, personally wouldn't use a samsung drive if I was paid!!
That said I would choose WD over seagate.

ntg · 19 Nov 2009 at 14:29

Thank you everyone for your replies, good food for thought.

cheers

P.S obviously I can't mention where I saw this price difference but it shouldn't be difficult to spot.

CBJ · 19 Nov 2009 at 14:58

osc89er said:
I don't see how anyone would be permitted to answer this question...

There was no question there. It was just an observation.

Vesta_Man said:
Seagate, personally wouldn't use a samsung drive if I was paid!!

I've got at least 6 Samsung drives of various shapes and sizes in different systems and am happy with all of them. My personal wouldn't-use-it-if-you-paid-me drive manufacturer is Hitachi. Among the other makes I'll take whatever meets my performance/noise/heat/price requirements most closely.

Gilesc · 19 Nov 2009 at 16:54

I have a Seagate Barracuda 1.5Tb.

I'm happy with it, obviously not the performance of a SSD, but plenty of space and appears reasonably quick for a platter drive.

miniyazz · 19 Nov 2009 at 17:01

Vesta_Man said:
Seagate, personally wouldn't use a samsung drive if I was paid!!
That said I would choose WD over seagate.

My Samsung's have been more reliable than my Seagates.

However, I'm not that shortsighted/prejudiced that I would never use a Seagate again, even if someone paid me

IAmATeaf · 19 Nov 2009 at 20:59

Gilesc said:
I have a Seagate Barracuda 1.5Tb.

I'm happy with it, obviously not the performance of a SSD, but plenty of space and appears reasonably quick for a platter drive.

I've go a pair of Seagate 1.5tb drives and they performed faultlessly, hope I'm not tempting fate