Best 2.5-inch hard drive for storage and gaming?

[RodoGodo19]

1TB 5,400 RPM:

1. Seagate 1TB BarraCuda $54.78
2. Seagate 1TB Firecuda Gaming $65.50
3. WD Blue 1TB $56.89

1TB 7,200 RPM:

1. WD Black 1TB $73.95
2. HGST Travelstar 7K1000 1TB $59.93

Which one is the best 2.5-inch hard drive for storage and gaming?.

The hard drive is for the Fractal Design Node 202 Mini ITX case.

 

[Kursah]

I'd get the 7.2K RPM drives all day long, Hitachi preferably. Though WD blacks are good drives and highly regarded, every one I've owned has ended up reporting bad sectors. Though admittedly one is pushing 7 years old now, had bad sectors, RMA'd, the RMA'd drive had bad sectors about a year later...after warranty expired...still running to this day for non-important storage purposes.

If you don't need 1TB of space, I'd suggest an SSD though. It'll perform better for gaming. I picked up a WD Blue SSD 500GB for $140 a few weeks ago from Amazon.com, solid investment IMHO.

 

[RodoGodo19]

I'd get the 7.2K RPM drives all day long, Hitachi preferably. Though WD blacks are good drives and highly regarded, every one I've owned has ended up reporting bad sectors. Though admittedly one is pushing 7 years old now, had bad sectors, RMA'd, the RMA'd drive had bad sectors about a year later...after warranty expired...still running to this day for non-important storage purposes.

If you don't need 1TB of space, I'd suggest an SSD though. It'll perform better for gaming. I picked up a WD Blue SSD 500GB for $140 a few weeks ago from Amazon.com, solid investment IMHO.

I cannot afford a SSD for gaming right now, I need a drive for storage and gaming at the same time.

 

[evernessince]

I'd get the 7.2K RPM drives all day long, Hitachi preferably. Though WD blacks are good drives and highly regarded, every one I've owned has ended up reporting bad sectors. Though admittedly one is pushing 7 years old now, had bad sectors, RMA'd, the RMA'd drive had bad sectors about a year later...after warranty expired...still running to this day for non-important storage purposes.

If you don't need 1TB of space, I'd suggest an SSD though. It'll perform better for gaming. I picked up a WD Blue SSD 500GB for $140 a few weeks ago from Amazon.com, solid investment IMHO.

It's possible that those bad sectors were on the disk to begin with. As hard drive density increases the more and more the imperfections on a disk surface will come into play at smaller and smaller sizes.

I don't know what procedures you use to test new hard drives but I always fill up and erase a hard drive at least twice with data nonstop before I put it into actual operation. If there are any mechanical errors or bad sectors on the disc this test always finds them.

 

[Kursah]

It's possible that those bad sectors were on the disk to begin with. As hard drive density increases the more and more the imperfections on a disk surface will come into play at smaller and smaller sizes.

I don't know what procedures you use to test new hard drives but I always fill up and erase a hard drive at least twice with data nonstop before I put it into actual operation. If there are any mechanical errors or bad sectors on the disc this test always finds them.

All physical platter drives have bad sectors...it's the nature of their design and manufacturing, it isn't until a specified amount of them has been used that the logic board reports any of them to the system that you should be concerned with it though, because until it is reported users are none-the-wiser and it really doesn't matter because there's enough spare space to use up. Platter drives have a certain amount of spare sectors to use before it reports that can be considered a buffer zone, this amount can vary between platter count, vendor, drive size, batch, etc.

@RGT, err... @RodoGodo19 , I stand by my original statement. Hitachi 1TB 7.2K RPM is what I would choose.

 

[RodoGodo19]

All physical platter drives have bad sectors...it's the nature of their design and manufacturing, it isn't until a specified amount of them has been used that the logic board reports any of them to the system that you should be concerned with it though, because until it is reported users are none-the-wiser and it really doesn't matter because there's enough spare space to use up. Platter drives have a certain amount of spare sectors to use before it reports that can be considered a buffer zone, this amount can vary between platter count, vendor, drive size, batch, etc.

@RGT, err... @RodoGodo19 , I stand by my original statement. Hitachi 1TB 7.2K RPM is what I would choose.

7,200 2.5" is noticeably faster than 5,400? (loading movies, photos, games)

 

[Kursah]

Response time is faster in many cases, power consumption will be a little bit higher...but that shouldn't matter. 5.4k drives are considered "eco" or "economy" drives IMHO. From my experience throughput can be lower and response rates are always lower. The biggest places you'll notice it is swapping between storage locations, loading large amounts of data (games, programs), booting the OS.

There's a reason higher speed drives are used in data stores and servers where throughput and response are important. Get those platters spinning faster, get your data faster. Now if we could get 15K drives more economically...but I guess with solid state technology hopefully we won't have to care sooner than later.

 

[RodoGodo19]

Response time is faster in many cases, power consumption will be a little bit higher...but that shouldn't matter. 5.4k drives are considered "eco" or "economy" drives IMHO. From my experience throughput can be lower and response rates are always lower. The biggest places you'll notice it is swapping between storage locations, loading large amounts of data (games, programs), booting the OS.

There's a reason higher speed drives are used in data stores and servers where throughput and response are important. Get those platters spinning faster, get your data faster. Now if we could get 15K drives more economically...but I guess with solid state technology hopefully we won't have to care sooner than later.

what about a SSHD for a few dollars more?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M1NHCZT/?tag=tec06d-20

 

[Kursah]

Nah..if it were the same price I'd say yes or closer to $70 even. But I have several at home and can't tell the difference honestly. Sure the OS might load a second or two faster if that, sure a game you open every day might open a touch faster...but honestly unless you're constantly timing it, you'd never notice.

I see even with these newer generation SSHD's they still run 8GB SSD caches...now if they ran 64GB that'd make more of a difference that we'd notice. I know there is a WD drive that has a 120GB SSD and 1TB HDD in one housing, but that's not quite the same iirc.

Though it might help compensate a little bit for that 5.4k speed..maaayyyyybe...my experiences with SSHD's have been fairly lackluster and the gains not worth an extra $20+. But the 5yr warranty is sure a nice thing to see and would be a strong factor in the decision IMHO. 3-5 is a good range to go for unless you trust the brand that may have a shorter warranty.

 

[R-T-B]

+1 For the HGST Travelstar 7.2k rpm drive.

 

[evernessince]

All physical platter drives have bad sectors...it's the nature of their design and manufacturing, it isn't until a specified amount of them has been used that the logic board reports any of them to the system that you should be concerned with it though, because until it is reported users are none-the-wiser and it really doesn't matter because there's enough spare space to use up. Platter drives have a certain amount of spare sectors to use before it reports that can be considered a buffer zone, this amount can vary between platter count, vendor, drive size, batch, etc.

@RGT, err... @RodoGodo19 , I stand by my original statement. Hitachi 1TB 7.2K RPM is what I would choose.

I'm talking about the uncorrectable errors. These can turn into real issues quickly as it's likely for them to spread.

 

[FireFox]

WD Black 1TB $73.95

No doubts.

I have one for my Games and so far it works pretty good.

 

[JunkBear]

The Firecuda has 128megs cache and is considered hybride in memory.

 

[Kursah]

I'm talking about the uncorrectable errors. These can turn into real issues quickly as it's likely for them to spread.

So am I. Bad sectors don't get repaired, they get flagged and recoverable data gets moved and re-indexed...when that buffer runs out, your data loss risk is substantially increased.

So that this train stays on topic for the OP, you have a recommendation from their list?

@JunkBear 128MB cache is pretty good for cache, not as frequent as 64MB. And from what I see on the product page it appears the Barracuda is 128MB, then there's the basic FireCuda Gaming 1TB that has 64MB cache and 8GB SSD cache and the FireCuda Gaming 2TB that has 64MB cache and 8GB SSD cache. Where do you see a FireCuda 2.5" with 128MB cache? Even if a 5.4K drive had 128MB cache, I'd still choose a 7.2K 64MB Hitachi over it based on my experience with various drives. In this comparison, that it's also at a good price point.

 

[JunkBear]

So am I. Bad sectors don't get repaired, they get flagged and recoverable data gets moved and re-indexed...when that buffer runs out, your data loss risk is substantially increased.

So that this train stays on topic for the OP, you have a recommendation from their list?

@JunkBear 128MB cache is pretty good for cache, not as frequent as 64MB. And from what I see on the product page it appears the Barracuda is 128MB, then there's the basic FireCuda Gaming 1TB that has 64MB cache and 8GB SSD cache and the FireCuda Gaming 2TB that has 64MB cache and 8GB SSD cache. Where do you see a FireCuda 2.5" with 128MB cache? Even if a 5.4K drive had 128MB cache, I'd still choose a 7.2K 64MB Hitachi over it based on my experience with various drives. In this comparison, that it's also at a good price point.

Instead of talking for nothing I made research. https://www.amazon.ca/Seagate-Firecuda-2-5-Inch-Internal-ST1000LX015/dp/B01LWRTRZU

 

[Komshija]

Toshiba H200 or HGST Travelstar that you mentioned.

 

[Mussels]

SSD is the best, clearly.


Firecuda is a *7,200RPM* hybrid drive, so that'd be my pick of that list (64MB cache, 8GB NAND SSD)

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178995

 

[Upgrayedd]

Doesn't Toshiba own HGST's HDD portion now and WD owns the SSD portion of HGST? This always made me think HGST drives were just Toshiba drives but I also forget my age and what kind of car I drive sometimes LOL.

 

[R-T-B]

Doesn't Toshiba own HGST's HDD portion now and WD owns the SSD portion of HGST? This always made me think HGST drives were just Toshiba drives but I also forget my age and what kind of car I drive sometimes LOL.

It's confusing as heck, but Toshiba and Western Digital both split HGSTs 3.5" "Deskstar" line. HGST Ultrastar and Travelstar are exclusively owned by WD.

 

[RodoGodo19]

SSD is the best, clearly.


Firecuda is a *7,200RPM* hybrid drive, so that'd be my pick of that list (64MB cache, 8GB NAND SSD)

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178995

firecuda is 5,400 I think...

 

[Mussels]

firecuda is 5,400 I think...

the link i posted shows 7,200

"Seagate FireCuda Gaming SSHD 1TB 7200 RPM "

 

[RodoGodo19]

the link i posted shows 7,200

"Seagate FireCuda Gaming SSHD 1TB 7200 RPM "

but the 2TB model is not 7,200, isn't?

 

[Kursah]

Instead of talking for nothing I made research. https://www.amazon.ca/Seagate-Firecuda-2-5-Inch-Internal-ST1000LX015/dp/B01LWRTRZU

Still a 5.4K drive according to the MFG (a better source than Amazon for authoritative answers) as I said before. 128MB cache isn't going to fix that and make it truly compete with a 7.2K drive.

The 7.2K RPM SSHD that @Mussels points out would be the better buy in this case.

but the 2TB model is not 7,200, isn't?

Here's the Seagate manual for the drive, states both 1TB and 2TB are 7.2K RPM drives.

 

[RodoGodo19]

Still a 5.4K drive according to the MFG (a better source than Amazon for authoritative answers) as I said before. 128MB cache isn't going to fix that and make it truly compete with a 7.2K drive.

The 7.2K RPM SSHD that @Mussels points out would be the better buy in this case.



Here's the Seagate manual for the drive, states both 1TB and 2TB are 7.2K RPM drives.

you are wrong, you are missing something very important.
The models mentioned in the manual is for 3.5-inch hard drives and I'm looking at 2.5-inch hard drives.

2.5" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M1NHCZT/?tag=tec06d-20

they are 5,400rpm

 

[Kursah]

you are wrong, you are missing something very important.
The models mentioned in the manual is for 3.5-inch hard drives and I'm looking at 2.5-inch hard drives.

2.5" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M1NHCZT/?tag=tec06d-20

they are 5,400rpm

Yep it seems that the one I looked at based on the linked part numbers above, ST1000DX002 and ST2000DX002, I missed that fact as they are indeed 3.5" 7.2K drives. Easier to cram better platter performance in a larger package. Too bad you can't make one fit in that tiny case.

Looks like the HGST is still the winner here in my eyes, or if it were my system that's what I'd buy and be done with it.