# Which 1TB HDD i should buy?



## freebird_9924 (Mar 9, 2010)

Hello,
Which one TB extrernal HDD i should buy?

*Seagate or iomega?*

both are around 100USD [5,000/-INR]

Seagate has 2 models, one 2yr waranty 2.5" black colours and one 5 yr warranty silver colour 3.5".
Any technical difference  between both?*Which one is best among both model of seagate?*

Thanks.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 9, 2010)

Well, it depends on the innards. If you can get the model number of the drives, then we might be able to tell you which one is better.


----------



## Frick (Mar 9, 2010)

I don't think it matters that much actually. I'd go for the one with the longest warranty.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 9, 2010)

I'd go for the one with the fastest transfer speeds.


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 9, 2010)

1
1TB seagate 2yr warranty

2
1TB-SEAGATE-EXTERNAL-HARD-DRIVE-1-TB-3-5-5-yrs-BILL


3
1TB IOmega eGo Desktop USB External Hard Disk Drive 

4
iOmega Select Desktop USB Hard Disk Drive 1TB - Black

Which one from above 4? and what's difference between 1&2 , 3&4?

Thanks.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 10, 2010)

There is no real difference in the actual drive's whatsoever. One thing I did notice is the Iomega drive's only come with a 8mb buffer/cache, this is very small for a drive of its size and personally would be a little concerned about the overall speed of this drive.

The Seagate drive's do not state how large the buffer/cache size is, however I do trust with Seagate it will be larger than the Iomega drive you have selected.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 10, 2010)

It's kinda hard to tell exactly what you're getting from these auctions.  I've seen reports both ways as far as whether the Seagate Freeagent is faster than the eGo.  Smaller sized eGo drive was benchmarked to be faster than the Freeagent: http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/iomega-ego-vs-seagate-freeagent-go-portable-hard-drive-320-gb-review/ I can't find any newer more relevant comparisons of the 1TB drives.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 10, 2010)

Tech2 said:


> There is no real difference in the actual drive's whatsoever. One thing I did notice is the Iomega drive's only come with a 8mb buffer/cache, this is very small for a drive of its size and personally would be a little concerned about the overall speed of this drive.
> 
> The Seagate drive's do not state how large the buffer/cache size is, however I do trust with Seagate it will be larger than the Iomega drive you have selected.



External drives don't perform fast enough to require more than 8MB cache.  I would be surprised to see the Seagates using more.  The review above has the Iomega running slightly faster than the Seagate.


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 10, 2010)

but what's difference between those 2 seagates and those 2 iomega hdds?

=================================
So u recommand me to buy iomega?

Thanks.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 10, 2010)

DirectorC said:


> *External drives don't perform fast enough to require more than 8MB cache.  I would be surprised to see the Seagates using more*.  The review above has the Iomega running slightly faster than the Seagate.



That is a personal opinion.


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 10, 2010)

Not really, they transfer data at about 25MB/sec, that's a fact.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 10, 2010)

It really does depend on the size/type of external HDD.

Anyways to keep on topic here I would suggest there is no MAJOR difference in the drive's you selected, all but the one of personal fashion sense to which you like the look of more.


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 10, 2010)

no definate answer?

I think TPU users haven't used iomega.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 10, 2010)

Hmm I've looked around everywhere for more info on the Seagate drive but unable to find the buffer size for this drive, right now I'm thinking the Iomega drive is the one to get, ALL specs are listed and they just look hell of a damn sight better in my opinion.

I'm sure that if you don't want to take anything into account that I've said so far that someone will surely come along and give you another answer, although I can not see it being all that different.


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 10, 2010)

Thanks.
And what about western digital?
iomega is even better than western digital?


----------



## Techtu (Mar 10, 2010)

Western Digital are for sure a great make as anyone will tell you, I would favour Western Digital over Iomega as with Western Digital it's a well known and trusted brand and to be honest their HDD's really do last, but at the same time if your only going to use it as backup or something then it's not something you should really worry about too much (as you won't be using the drive for everyday uses).


----------



## erocker (Mar 10, 2010)

Are these external drives USB or eSATA? Can you give us any specifications of each drive? Brand name really doesn't matter here.


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 10, 2010)

*can u find goodone for me from bestbuy.com?*

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Hard-Drives/External-Hard-Drives/abcat0504003.c?id=abcat0504003
==============
seagate has 32mb cache and iomega has 8mb. no idea abt westerndigital.
which is better? 32mb or 8mb cache?
==============

Please suggest me from bestbuy 1TB/1.5TB upto 100-150USD.

I've searched following..
1.Seagate - Expansion 1TB External USB 2.0 Desktop Hard Drive - Black

2.Seagate - FreeAgent Desk 1TB External USB 2.0 Hard Drive

3.Seagate - 1.5TB External USB 2.0 Desktop Hard Drive - Black

4.Toshiba - 1TB External USB 2.0/eSATA Portable Hard Drive - Black

5.Iomega - Prestige 1TB External USB 2.0 Hard Drive

6.Western Digital - My Book Essential 1TB External USB 2.0 Hard Drive

7.Western Digital - My Passport Essential SE 1TB External USB 2.0 Portable Hard Drive - Black

difference between 1&2?
3rd one 1.5 tb is similar to 1st or 2nd or difference than both?
===================
Also check following post for other links i posted for iomega specially.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1800185&postcount=5

Can you tell me which is best among above all?
last one doesnt need external power supply isnt it? apart from last one, any other hdd which also doesnt need external suppoty from above list?

What about toshiba? looking good..any reviews?

Thanks.


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 10, 2010)

please guys, reply above post fast as i need to order it within a day if ordering from us as my friend is coming from us within 5days.


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 14, 2010)

comeon guys, reply now.

Which one do u preffer?why?

seagate/westerndigital/iomega?

obviously seagate is undoubtedly good but wht abt iomega?


----------



## Widjaja (Mar 15, 2010)

Personally it comes down to two things.
Which has the best warranty and which brand do you like best.

I personally go for Western Digital because I have only used western digital 3.5" drives plus at work, I have not had one customer with a faulty WD drive I the years I have been there.
But this could also relate to price as Seagate are cheaper.

As for iOmega.....never tried one.


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 15, 2010)

hmm.Thinking about WesternDigital. 
I heard it has also onsite warranty. So better than seagate in that aspect.
http://cgi.ebay.in/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170457069485
IS THIS OK?


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 15, 2010)

Which one has the longest warranty?  Get that one.

The speed difference is going to be marginal, as they are all going through USB which will be the limitting factor.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 15, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Which one has the longest warranty?  Get that one.
> 
> The speed difference is going to be marginal, as they are all going through USB which will be the limitting factor.



Although the 4th one in his list is capable of using eSATA


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 15, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Which one has the longest warranty?  Get that one.
> 
> The speed difference is going to be marginal, as they are all going through USB which will be the limitting factor.



seagate has 5yrs and WD has 3 yrs warranty but WD has onsite warranty.

*buffer capacity in iomega is 8x and seagae is 32x..can anyone tell me wht's difference in both? lesser is good or  more is good?*


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 15, 2010)

More buffer is good. but not sure how much better.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 15, 2010)

freebird_9924 said:


> seagate has 5yrs and WD has 3 yrs warranty but WD has onsite warranty.
> 
> *buffer capacity in iomega is 8x and seagae is 32x..can anyone tell me wht's difference in both? lesser is good or  more is good?*





When you try to access some content/file from a hard disk it takes time to find the content you need, buffer give you high speed access. So when you've recently used some content/file and close it, it will save it all to the buffer incase you may want to reopen the content/file.

So yes, more is better for sure! 

I can notice the difference between my 120GB (8MB Buffer) and my 1TB (32MB Buffer).


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 15, 2010)

Tech2 said:


> When you try to access some content/file from a hard disk it takes time to find the content you need, buffer give you high speed access. So when you've recently used some content/file and close it, it will save it all to the buffer incase you may want to reopen the content/file.
> 
> So yes, more is better for sure!
> 
> I can notice the difference between my 120GB (8MB Buffer) and my 1TB (32MB Buffer).



then definately excluding iomega..

will buy seagate or WD, whichever is cheapest within 10days. 

Do you know buffer size for WD 1TB book essential?

Thanks.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 15, 2010)

A larger cache is better, however on external USB drives it won't make a difference.

Reading from the Cache is very fast, this is typically what you see in benchmarks as the burst speed.  However, on USB drives, the burst speed and the normal read speed will both be right at the 20-25MB/s mark, because it doesn't matter if it is reading from the cache or the actual disk, the USB connection is the limitting factor.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 15, 2010)

Looking for the WD drive you asked the buffer size for i come across this...

Environmental Specifications	
Temperature (English)
	Operating	41° F to 95° F
	Non-operating	-4° F to 149° F

Temperature (Metric)
	Operating	5° C to 35° C
	Non-operating	-20° C to 65° C

Source

I can see that your from India... now correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't it get a little hot in your country?


----------



## freebird_9924 (Mar 15, 2010)

Tech2 said:


> Looking for the WD drive you asked the buffer size for i come across this...
> 
> Environmental Specifications
> Temperature (English)
> ...



Yes, hot in summer.
In summer 35-45 degree C temperature. In winter 20-30 usually.

http://cgi.ebay.in/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170457069485
i'm going to buy this? i think indian manufactured hdd shd be different?

BTW, wht abt buffer size? u didnt mentioned that.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 15, 2010)

freebird_9924 said:


> Yes, hot in summer.
> In summer 35-45 degree C temperature. In winter 20-30 usually.
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.in/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170457069485
> ...


Buffer size does not matter on a USB 2.0 drive. USB 2.0 is not fast enough to take advantage of the buffer differences.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 15, 2010)

freebird_9924 said:


> Yes, hot in summer.
> In summer 35-45 degree C temperature. In winter 20-30 usually.
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.in/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170457069485
> ...




That's the exact same drive, just from India, I'm sure if you have enough cooling in your case and on your HDD it should be fine, i've also known them to run a littler hotter than expected.

I didn't mention anything about the buffer size as i couldn't find the info, however do take into account what newtekie1 said: I'm going with him on this on as to be honest I didn't know this info either...



newtekie1 said:


> A larger cache is better, however on external USB drives it won't make a difference.
> 
> Reading from the Cache is very fast, this is typically what you see in benchmarks as the burst speed.  However, on USB drives, the burst speed and the normal read speed will both be right at the 20-25MB/s mark, because it doesn't matter if it is reading from the cache or the actual disk, the USB connection is the limitting factor.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 15, 2010)

Maybe it is just me, but with temps that high, I think it might be benefitial to buy an internal drive and put it in a decent external enclosure with a fan in it.

I don't know if that is possible in India, as I don't know what parts are available or not there, but that is what I would do.


----------



## Techtu (Mar 15, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Maybe it is just me, but with temps that high, I think it might be benefitial to buy an internal drive and put it in a decent external enclosure with a fan in it.
> 
> I don't know if that is possible in India, as I don't know what parts are available or not there, but that is what I would do.



Good point there!


----------

