SG 7200.10 or WD SE16...

2Thumbs

2Thumbs

2Thumbs

Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2005
Posts
3,352
Location
Devon
...That is the question. ;)

I was originally after a 250gb, but after seeing the small price increase of an extra 70gb. I thought I'd go for a 320gb Drive. :D

Anyway, The Seagate is £5 more expensive than the WD. But it also has NCQ and a 5 year warranty over the 3 years of the WD.

What's the noise and speed like of each? Is NCQ needed? Also, has the bad batch of 7200.10's now disappeared?

Thanking you. :)
 
It seems most of the new 7200.10s are the quiet versions, so you should be ok there.

320GB is definitely the best price point atm, you won't go wrong with either but the Seagate is the more attractive deal.

I'm a WD fanboy, but even so I'd have a hard time deciding - I'd probably get the Seagate.
 
2Thumbs said:
Is NCQ needed?
Click to expand...
NCQ is really only a benefit in a server type environment where there are multiple simultaneous I/O requests. NCQ basically sends all these requests to the disk in a lump and then lets the disk decide which order to serve them in. The theory is that the disk can then optimise the retrieval of the data by getting it in the order it is stored in rather than the order it was requested in and thereby removing uneccesary disk head movments.

In a desktop environment it's not that much of a benefit because there isn't the same degree of I/O contention but as they say - every little helps.
 
I picked the seagates above the WDs,

Seagates supposedly have a lower noise output, but the WDs are slightly faster by maybe 1/2 meg a second, if that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom