Seagate or WD?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,

I have a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250 GB (ST3250820AS) installed on my Mac Pro. I've been given a Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB HDD. I was wondering if it was worth me using this WD as my main hard drive instead of the Seagate. Which is faster?

Thanks
 
well as far as i can tell they're both 7200 rpm (without looking anything up) but you might not notice much difference

it depends on the caches of the drives though, the wd one might have a 16mb one (again, i'm doing this from memory) but it depends on if you want the hassle of transferring all your programs and settings over

personally i'd put the wd in the pc as a slave drive ;)

you probably wouldn't notice much difference in access speed but both drives have the same capacity so you wouldn't benefit a whole lot from changing, really
 
The WD is 16MB cache. I dont mind transferring apps over. OSX is easy to get up and running with all the progs I need. I'll be using one of the drives as slave for Music storage. So speed isn't as crucial there.
 
well like i said, personally i'd put the wd in as slave because you can carry on using your pc as normal and you probably won't notice much of an advantage in using the wd as the master drive because they're both 7200rpm and the wd has a 16mb cache but i don't know how much better this makes it

at the end of the day though it's up to you ;)
 
Not Sure of the Significance of This But.......,

WD Sata 2 Series "SE" HDDs 320 GB and below do NOT support NCQ (native command queing). You must buy WD "RE" (Raid Edition). All the Seagate Sata 2s (even the 80GB) DO! Intel's Matrix storage technology and Viiv won't work without NCQ. As the title suggests I don't know if this matters to you. The Seagates carry a full 5 year warranty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back