Seagate 1TB Serial ATA/300 32MB Buffer ST1000340AS-RK - Retail Boxed Hard Drive $234.99

[Mitch101]

Seagate 1TB Serial ATA/300 32MB Buffer ST1000340AS-RK - Retail Boxed Hard Drive $234.99

http://shop2.outpost.com/product/5478279

 

[Soundmanred]

This is from Fry's, and is one per household.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Soundmanred
This is from Fry's, and is one per household.

Frys = Outpost

And HOT deal...the Seagate 1TB is by far the fastest of all the 1TB models. I'm on the fence...

 

[Midnight Rambler]

But how is Seagate's reliability as compared to WD ?

And I continue to fail to understand why Outpost charges Ohio residents sales tax ? There are no retail Fry's in the state, nor is there a shipping warehouse from which Outpost fulfills orders.

 

[McFly]

Originally posted by: Midnight Rambler
But how is Seagate's reliability as compared to WD ?

IMO, much better. Have yet to have a Seagate drive fail on me. Have had to RMA several WD's and multiple times on some.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Midnight Rambler
But how is Seagate's reliability as compared to WD ?

And I continue to fail to understand why Outpost charges Ohio residents sales tax ? There are no retail Fry's in the state, nor is there a shipping warehouse from which Outpost fulfills orders.

http://www.scripophily.net/cyboutinwebs.html

"In 2000 Outpost.com moved into a new 18,000-square-foot building built at the rear of Town Center. It added more space in Bethel and a huge warehouse complex in Ohio."


http://www.news.com/2100-1017_3-239183.html

"Because the company's Wilmington, Ohio-based warehouse sits next door to Airborne Express' shipping hub, Outpost has struck an agreement with the company. When Outpost receives orders, it can pick, pack and run it next door to have the overnight shipping company deliver it in a matter of hours. "

 

[ncage]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: Soundmanred
This is from Fry's, and is one per household.

Frys = Outpost

And HOT deal...the Seagate 1TB is by far the fastest of all the 1TB models. I'm on the fence...

It is? I would like proof of this.

From storagereview:
Conclusion

When it comes to sheer single-user performance, the newest offerings from Seagate and Western Digital cannot touch Hitachi's mighty Deskstar 7K1000. Those seeking the ultimate in capacity and speed remain with the 7K1000 as their only choice.

Of course, that said, the newcomers reviewed here approach their respective manufacturer's arrival at the one terabyte mark with goals that differ from Hitachi and from each other.


Perhaps most surprising when it comes to the ES.2 is the relative lack of single-user performance improvements over the Barracuda ES 750. The newer drive features a 32 MB buffer, only the second drive to do so. While Seagate has never been about bleeding-edge desktop performance, many assumed that a doubling in buffer size would, through brute force, yield some significant performance gains. This is not the case when it comes to the ES.2 and non-server speed.

FYI ES=7200.10 and ES.2=7200.11

 

[bigi]

With tax and shipping it comes very close to Hitachi @ NewEgg

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: ncage

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: Soundmanred
This is from Fry's, and is one per household.

Frys = Outpost

And HOT deal...the Seagate 1TB is by far the fastest of all the 1TB models. I'm on the fence...

It is? I would like proof of this.

From storagereview:
Conclusion

When it comes to sheer single-user performance, the newest offerings from Seagate and Western Digital cannot touch Hitachi's mighty Deskstar 7K1000. Those seeking the ultimate in capacity and speed remain with the 7K1000 as their only choice.

Of course, that said, the newcomers reviewed here approach their respective manufacturer's arrival at the one terabyte mark with goals that differ from Hitachi and from each other.


Perhaps most surprising when it comes to the ES.2 is the relative lack of single-user performance improvements over the Barracuda ES 750. The newer drive features a 32 MB buffer, only the second drive to do so. While Seagate has never been about bleeding-edge desktop performance, many assumed that a doubling in buffer size would, through brute force, yield some significant performance gains. This is not the case when it comes to the ES.2 and non-server speed.

FYI ES=7200.10 and ES.2=7200.11

Here's a shootout with the 7200.11:

http://barefeats.com/hard94.html

The Seagate nails all but 1 test. Which model is in the OP's post - .10 or .11? I'm having a hard time finding information on it.

 

[jjmIII]

Which model is in the OP's post - .10 or .11? I'm having a hard time finding information on it.

The 32mb cache are all .11 drives.

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: jjmIII
The 32mb cache are all .11 drives.

That is my understanding, also.
BYW, all made in China. Chinese QC not as fastidious as other Asian countries of origin.
I've seen fingerprints (which I assume are Chinese, but never on other than China drives).

BTW, OP, this is hot imho.

 

[hytek369]

pretty hot to me

 

[playgroundtwister]

would rate it hot if not for that limit 1 rule.

 

[Nessism]

750GB drive is $149 http://shop2.outpost.com/produ...sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG Why pay $85 more for the last 250GB?

Regarding drive speed, it's nice to have the fastest drive but considering how minor the differences really are, is it worth the effort to worry about?

To me the real determining factor in which drive to pick is the reliability record, and noise/speed as a second consideration. Seagate drives have a 5 year warranty which is nice. Not ready to go the Hitachi route considering the bad taste in my mouth regarding the old Deathstar debacle - yes, I know it's Hitachi now but even still...you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

 

[will792]

You can get external 1TB Hitachi at BestBuy this week for $230 + tax (if any) and take out the drive:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/ol...oduct&id=1177112455081

I still do not understand why so many external Hitachi drives cost less than equivalent in size internal drives.

 

[BigInJapan]

I find it kind of funny that best buy is having a "sale" on Hitachi's 750gb drive as well. It's only $10 more than the 1tb model!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Nessism
750GB drive is $149 http://shop2.outpost.com/produ...sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG Why pay $85 more for the last 250GB?

Not the same model line, check the specifications, there are differences other than just the 250gb.

 

[Nessism]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Nessism
750GB drive is $149 http://shop2.outpost.com/produ...sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG Why pay $85 more for the last 250GB?

Not the same model line, check the specifications, there are differences other than just the 250gb.

Of course they are different, but different enough to justify the excessive price increase?

 

[Nole7]

Originally posted by: Nessism

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Nessism
750GB drive is $149 http://shop2.outpost.com/produ...sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG Why pay $85 more for the last 250GB?

Not the same model line, check the specifications, there are differences other than just the 250gb.

Of course they are different, but different enough to justify the excessive price increase?

Yes.

Something else worth considering is that if you're running, say four of these HDDs in your system, you're saving the power drain of an additional drive as compared to 750GB HDDs.

 

[Nessism]

Originally posted by: Nole7

Originally posted by: Nessism

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Nessism
750GB drive is $149 http://shop2.outpost.com/produ...sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG Why pay $85 more for the last 250GB?

Not the same model line, check the specifications, there are differences other than just the 250gb.

Of course they are different, but different enough to justify the excessive price increase?

Yes.

Why?

 

[Lurker1]

I don't know about these specific drives, as there's not enough technical info on them on the web site, and I'm to lazy to look up detailed specs. The 16MB difference in cache alone could be worthwhile. Or the data densitiy (= faster transfer rates). There's a ton of reasons one drive is far better than the other, and they do not have to do with heat or noise, although those are important for certain applications. I'd like 4 of either one, in which case 4 of the latter gives me an extra TB to fit on a single MB. You decide.

 

[Elixer]

Originally posted by: McFly

Originally posted by: Midnight Rambler
But how is Seagate's reliability as compared to WD ?

IMO, much better. Have yet to have a Seagate drive fail on me. Have had to RMA several WD's and multiple times on some.

It is a crap shoot.

I have had multiple seagate drives fail on me, and that includes the replacement drive that they have sent back.

Most people pick seagate for the 5 year warranty.

If you care about your data, then buy 2 and mirror your data.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

I've had the same bad luck with some Seagates as well, that's why I asked.

Also, from reading a few reviews, the 32MB cache doesn't seem to offer much of a performance improvement, if any.

 

[sleefer]

I thought all the ES.2's were Enterprise grade ST31000xNS orST31000xSS drives. The xAS are ES.2's also?

 

[Lurker1]

Originally posted by: Elixer
If you care about your data, then buy 2 and mirror your data.

If you truly care about your data, create an external backup. Mirrors are more for those that require a higher level of uptime. Most home users could care less about continuous uptime, and would be better served with a rotating backup. Basically the simplest would be to copy your disk to an external HD periodically, say once a week, with 2 external drives so worst case you lose 1 week's worth of information. (rsync is wonderful for this, except, you guessed it, windows doesn't support it)

A mirror only protects you if 1 drive fails. It doesn't protect you against controller or OS failures which can corrupt both copies, or even user errors that result in unwanted modifying or deletion of files.

I don't know about you, but my 200GB of photos are certainly worth it.