Amazon India lightning deals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crucial MX500 500GB 2.5-inch SSD effectively @ 4614 (5126-10% CC offer)

1624815724678.png


It was some 5700 yesterday
 
Ok so with my pathetic SEARCH skills I was able to find this blog https://rml527.blogspot.com/ That has platter sizes.

"These attributes are important for several reasons: larger platter density generally allows for higher data throughput performance, but may result in slower seek performance. Meanwhile, less disks and actuator arms mean less moving parts in the drive to eventually break down, and can also lower the heat and noise output of a drive. I research and collect data from online, as well as from drives that I manage to test in real life, and put it all in these lists for you folks to look at."

nishthecooldude said:
Nope, 1/2/4 have similar platter sizes vs 1.5/3. Not sure about 5 or other size. You all can google and check this fact and data :)
Click to expand...

So sorta back to square one as far as 4tb vs 5tb 2.5" Drives are concerned.

Another comparison between WD and Seagate 5TB Portable Drives - https://www.anandtech.com/show/1484...ew-a-compact-capacity-play-sans-smr-hassles/2
 
Anecdotally I have purchased multiple 1TB HDD's and a couple of 2TB ones. They've all been decent. The first 1.5TB one was a seagate one i bought 18 months or so ago and it has been poor. Slow seek and transfer times all over
 
If I cud find the article, I'll edit & repost this msg in the thread.

The factual data was = earlier, Seagate was the first to roll out non- 2TB or 4TB drives. Some 1.5 ~ 3 TB products.

These failed miserably bcoz of their bad firmware and even worse manufacturing materials, and defects - induced due to rushed design failures coz of their idiot engineers.

So, a lot of (means about millions) of these units of these sizes, kept failing in under 45 days of them getting installed and run.

So, the reports of failure products was true. But maybe not anymore. Now, today they've improved but yeah, those platter fact might also come inyo effect.
I have about 14 HDDs running on my desktop, 4x = 3TB drives. And 4x = 4TB drives. Both having Seagate & WD pieces.
All are fine.
Then, YMMV.
 
dafreaking said:
Ok so with my pathetic SEARCH skills I was able to find this blog https://rml527.blogspot.com/ That has platter sizes.

"These attributes are important for several reasons: larger platter density generally allows for higher data throughput performance, but may result in slower seek performance. Meanwhile, less disks and actuator arms mean less moving parts in the drive to eventually break down, and can also lower the heat and noise output of a drive. I research and collect data from online, as well as from drives that I manage to test in real life, and put it all in these lists for you folks to look at."



So sorta back to square one as far as 4tb vs 5tb 2.5" Drives are concerned.

Another comparison between WD and Seagate 5TB Portable Drives - https://www.anandtech.com/show/1484...ew-a-compact-capacity-play-sans-smr-hassles/2
Click to expand...

Been using multiple WD 4/5 TB external HDDs for years. Except one (bought ages ago), all are doing fine (4+ years each). Clearly there has been write speed increases over the years (older 4 TB write at around 80, whereas the new ones can do 100-120).
 
Yes, I've also been using a 5TB WD Black for 4+ years and it runs beautifully. Looking for specific info [failure rates, etc] on 4tb vs 5tb 2.5" Portable drives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top