73 months ago
I am looking into a hard drive and was wondering what the difference is between the western digital black vs blue.
The biggest difference is probably the warranty.
If you're looking at 1TB drives, let me save you the trouble, just go with this one...
If you're still curious...
Performance wise, besides using benchmark software you won't see the difference, but Black has best performance (but can be loud). Blue hits the "sweet spot" between performance and power consumption. Green should just be avoided at all costs. Oh and warranty is 5yr for Black vs. 3yr for Blue
Hard drive choice is mainly preferential if one is choosing between certain brands. Green drives shouldn't "be avoided at all costs", they are okay drives and feature low power consumption and noise, which can be valuable in cases in which silence is optimal. Although, I wouldn't recommend loading an OS on one, it is certainly not horrible.
Now for the argument between Seagate and Western Digital. They are nearly the same. As for reliability, the Western Digital Caviar Blue features a 3-year warranty, while the Seagate Barracuda drive you chose is only 2 years. If anything, that only works against your argument. Western Digital drives are more power efficient than Seagate's drives as well, but granted, the difference is relatively miniscule.
Most drives from good brands will work perfectly fine as long as they are:
-Manufactured according to spec
-Shipped with care
-Used with a power supply that gives "clean power"
Please don't take this as a personal attack, it's just that I don't take kindly to shoving someone to a brand you like, especially without anything to back up your point. I have used Seagate and Western Digital, and love them both.
For munting (OP): The main difference between Black and Blue is the warranty. Both drives spin at 7200 RPM, and due to just plain physics, there is no way to read more data at a certain speed unless more information is compressed onto a single disk.
Despite your 'don't take kindly to shoving' comment, I do not take offense. I recommended the Seagate as it is atop several "Best 1TB Hard Drive" lists across a number of forums, and I've had several WD drives die on me, yet have never had a single problem with a Seagate drive. It's only logical that people make recommendations based on the information available and personal experience, which is what I did; I just spared the OP the elaborate explanation as to why.
I've lost $1000's of dollars by using WD Caviar Green, not even as an OS drive, which is why I said to avoid at all costs.
Warranties cover manufacturer defects, not user error. If a Seagate drive dies before the 2yr warranty, it's not AUTOMATICALLY a "bad hard drive", there are factors that can cause HDD's to die beyond factory issues, such as the "clean power" you mention.
It doesn't take very long to give a quick explanation, don't you think? As for the many WD hard drives failing and the no Seagate hard drives failing - I doubt you have an adequate sample size to have a conclusive argument. I've had 8 WD hard drives, no failures after 2 years, yet 3 Seagate drives and 2 failures. That doesn't mean anything! Luck is certainly a factor when it comes to hard drive longevity. I realize just because a hard drive fails before the warranty doesn't necessarily mean its a bad drive. However, under normal conditions, if the hard drive is built to close to spec, then it should last well over the manufacturer's warranty; they lose a ton on RMAs. Almost every single company underestimates warranty based on MTBF. What I'm saying is that hard drives are a preference, and no matter how much you want it to be different, they will be more or less the same.
Being that your approach involves taking shots at someone's advice and assuming their information isn't as credible as yours, I'm no more interested in your POV than you are in mine.
Personally, if my experience with anything were limited to less than 10, I wouldn't go around saying that I doubt someone else has an adequate sample size, because 8 is hardly noteworthy for the kind of argument you're presenting.
No offense, but I have not seen a single piece of evidence that you have given for choosing a Seagate drive. All you have said about them is that they are favored on many forums. I have something similar - Linus prefers WD, so honestly, this is not just a "one answer" issue. Maybe if you provided evidence for WHY the drives are better: for example, the barracudas have a higher read and write speed. As for taking shots at your credibility, I did no such thing. I said that I doubt your sample size is large enough to give an accurate description of the "be all end all" of hard drives. How many hard drives have you had from each company? The average DOA rate for OEM hard drives are 10-15%... Chances are, you will only see a defect in every 8-10 hard drives. This makes any argument inconclusive unless you are a large handler of drives, such as a retailer or large-scale system manufacturer. My POV is not valid either as a complete study of drives. The only reason I provided it was to show how irrelevant statistics in small batches is: you've had no problems with Seagate, while I've had a few. You've had problems with WD, while I've had next to none. Please go do me a favor: tell me what you think I mean in my previous posts. I'm not great at conveying the message I want to give, and I don't think you grasped what I was trying to say.
Thank you for the response. I have been eyeing the seagate and will do some more research on it.