which 320GB hdd?

delta555 · 21 Jan 2007 at 17:16

Ive been looking at either the seagate, samsung or wd caviar for a 320GB SATA 2 drive.

Couple of quesitons, first is whats with the SE16 and RE versions of the WD caviar hdd's? is the RE a RAID edition, and will this work in a non-RAID setup?

Is the performance of the wd over the seagate worth the extra noise?

Im leaning in between the wd and the seagate, with the samsung looking the worst of the three.

This drive would be for my xp pro drive with programs. Going to be migrating stuff from my xp home which has gone through about 3 computers.

mosfet · 21 Jan 2007 at 17:52

RE drives are aimed at SOHO users, where they will be on 24/7 with regular usages - I think the main differences are a more reliable motor and head servos. To reflect this their rated MTBF is usually double that of the nearest consumer part. The warranty is longer IIRC, and yes, they can be used fine in single or non-RAID applications.

The KS parts are basically the same as non-KS drives but have native SATA controllers with 16MB of cache.

The 7200.10 320GB Seagate drives edge out the WD drives in most benchmarks I've seen, and the latest revision (that I believe OCUK are shipping) are quiet and cool.

I'd go for the WD because I'm a fanboy, and because you don't really gain much for your extra £6 that goes on the Seagate, but the differences are minimal.

Switch · 22 Jan 2007 at 12:13

mosfet said:
RE drives are aimed at SOHO users, where they will be on 24/7 with regular usages - I think the main differences are a more reliable motor and head servos. To reflect this their rated MTBF is usually double that of the nearest consumer part. The warranty is longer IIRC, and yes, they can be used fine in single or non-RAID applications.

The KS parts are basically the same as non-KS drives but have native SATA controllers with 16MB of cache.

The 7200.10 320GB Seagate drives edge out the WD drives in most benchmarks I've seen, and the latest revision (that I believe OCUK are shipping) are quiet and cool.

I'd go for the WD because I'm a fanboy, and because you don't really gain much for your extra £6 that goes on the Seagate, but the differences are minimal.

The WD 320 and the seagate 320 are the same price, so as far as difference goes it has to come down to benchmarks or preference, benchmarks say the seagate wins hands down, but fans prefer the WD still. I guess it's up to you, if your a fan pick the wd, if your not and want the best for your money pick the seagate 7200.10.

mosfet · 22 Jan 2007 at 13:37

On OCUK

WD3200KS = £61
Seagate 7200.10 320GB ST3320620AS = £67

The Seagate is the better drive, but costs slightly more. If you've got the extra £6, go for it.

delta555 · 22 Jan 2007 at 19:26

ordered the seagate, should arrive here on wednesday.

Had a bit of problem with the order though, didnt see anything for adding different address to deliver to, so accidentally sent it to the billing address, which is across the country. So i sent in a webnote and tried for 20 minutes to call them up. Finally got through and they have changed the address to send it to me at uni, but means it will arrive a day later.