# Seagate Barracuda 1TB Hard Drive and SanDisk 240GB SSD



## denixius (Jan 28, 2019)

Hello,

I would like to buy a new hard drive and SSD, but I'm not completely sure which one is the best for my motherboard.

I added a hard drive and an SSD below. In addition to them, I also added my current motherboard. I don't think to change the motherboard, so I just want to change hard drive and SSD for now.

I kindly request advice about these components. I know that the motherboard has SATA 6Gb/s connectors; the hard drive and SSD is also SATA 3.0 and 6GB/s. Still, I might need a bit of advice from professionals just like you.

*Current Motherboard:* GA-Z97M-D3H _(link to its official webpage)_
*Hard Drive:* Seagate BarraCuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM 64MB Cache SATA 3 _(link to its official data sheet)_
*SSD:* SanDisk SSD Plus 240GB 530MB-440MB/s SATA 3 2.5" SDSSDA-240G-G26 _(link to its official webpage)_

_P.S.: I hope it's okay to put the links of hardware._

Thanks!


----------



## Nxodus (Jan 29, 2019)

Seagate Barracuda is excellent, bought the same 1TB HDD recently and I can only recommend.

I wouldn't buy a Sandisk SSD though. If you're going to use it for the OS then you better buy a reliable manufacturer with high TBW rates. Samsung 860 Evo.
If you're on a budget then get a Crucial perhaps


----------



## phill (Jan 29, 2019)

I've got a very early Sandisk Extreme SSD and it's been great, a little slower compared today's standards but still loads faster than a HD   Crucial and Samsung are probably the only two SSDs I could ever really recommend   Use Crucial at work and have a mixture of Crucial, Kingston, Sandisk and Samsung at home  

I've a few Seagate drives, one recently died for some reason (SMART status just not good... and then poof...  I've not seen it again since lol) but still recommend them as these are older drives (I can't remember when I bought them used everyday and as backup drives as well) so I think it's seen a fair bit of use.
You've picked good drives, anything would be more than enough for your uses


----------



## denixius (Jan 29, 2019)

Nxodus said:


> Seagate Barracuda is excellent, bought the same 1TB HDD recently and I can only recommend.
> 
> I wouldn't buy a Sandisk SSD though. If you're going to use is for the OS then you better buy a reliable manufacturer with high TBW rates. Samsung 860 Evo.
> If you're on a budget then get a Crucial perhaps





phill said:


> I've got a very early Sandisk Extreme SSD and it's been great, a little slower compared today's standards but still loads faster than a HD   Crucial and Samsung are probably the only two SSDs I could ever really recommend   Use Crucial at work and have a mixture of Crucial, Kingston, Sandisk and Samsung at home
> 
> I've a few Seagate drives, one recently died for some reason (SMART status just not good... and then poof...  I've not seen it again since lol) but still recommend them as these are older drives (I can't remember when I bought them used everyday and as backup drives as well) so I think it's seen a fair bit of use.
> You've picked good drives, anything would be more than enough for your uses



Hello,

Thanks for all of your confirmation; I guess I will keep these. The other ones like Crucial are still a bit pricy for me, though I was seeking a discount and found these drives. 

If they are okay as the component optimization, I'm okay with them, too. 

Bests,


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 29, 2019)

wolfaust said:


> Hello,
> 
> Thanks for all of your confirmation; I guess I will keep these. The other ones like Crucial are still a bit pricy for me, though I was seeking a discount and found these drives.
> 
> ...


Those are the 2 drives I have in my specs, no issues with either, the ssd probably not as good as a more expensive Sammy or corsair etc though sure to sata 3 only noticeable in benches and windows 10 takes a few seconds to load once I get past post.


----------



## denixius (Jan 29, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Those are the 2 drives I have in my specs, no issues with either, the ssd probably not as good as a more expensive Sammy or corsair etc though sure to sata 3 only noticeable in benches and windows 10 takes a few seconds to load once I get past post.



Yes. If the only problem loading Windows 10 in a few seconds, it is okay. I hope I will not face any other issues. And I trust you all!


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 29, 2019)

I recommend a Seagate Firecuda 2 TB over a SSD/HDD combo.  Normally cheaper, boots just as fast, easier to configure with almost twice the storage space and a 5 year warranty.


----------



## denixius (Jan 29, 2019)

thebluebumblebee said:


> I recommend a Seagate Firecuda 2 TB over a SSD/HDD combo.  Normally cheaper, boots just as fast, easier to configure with almost twice the storage space and a 5 year warranty.



I checked it, too, but also costs more than other drives. Strange. It says that this driver is specially manufactured for gaming.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 29, 2019)

thebluebumblebee said:


> I recommend a Seagate Firecuda 2 TB over a SSD/HDD combo.  Normally cheaper, boots just as fast, easier to configure with almost twice the storage space and a 5 year warranty.


Boots just as fast, perhaps, is it as fast as installing programs, extracting files, copying and moving files and a host of things an ssd does better than a sshd. No. I don't follow the easier to configure content either, plug drives in relevant sata ports and that's all the configuration you need or at most changing boot priority in bios. I'd still rather have a dedicated ssd os drive or in an ideal world just a 2tb+ ssd if they weren't still somewhat expensive. I think if I was buying my drives today the only thing I'd change is likely go for a 250/500gb ssd and 2tb+ hdd though prices are cheaper now than when I bought mine.




wolfaust said:


> Yes. If the only problem loading Windows 10 in a few seconds, it is okay. I hope I will not face any other issues. And I trust you all!



I was saying it was more of a positive than a problem, literally 5 seconds or so of windows starting after the post screen and I'm at the login screen


----------



## denixius (Jan 29, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Boots just as fast, perhaps, is it as fast as installing programs, extracting files, copying and moving files and a host of things an ssd does better than a sshd. No. I don't follow the easier to configure content either, plug drives in relevant sata ports and that's all the configuration you need or at most changing boot priority in bios. I'd still rather have a dedicated ssd os drive or in an ideal world just a 2tb+ ssd if they weren't still somewhat expensive. I think if I was buying my drives today the only thing I'd change is likely go for a 250/500gb ssd and 2tb+ hdd though prices are cheaper now than when I bought mine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks! That's good information. I will consider this, too.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 29, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Boots just as fast, perhaps, is it as fast as installing programs, extracting files, copying and moving files and a host of things an ssd does better than a sshd. No. I don't follow the easier to configure content either


With a small SSD, you always have to think about where you are installing, always having to deal with more than one drive letter.  No, an SSHD isn't as fast with all of those tasks, but really, so what, unless it's for a work system.
If you don't have to buy this now, SSD prices are expected to fall.  TrendForce: Contract Prices of NAND Flash Products to Drop Further 10% just in 1Q19


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 29, 2019)

thebluebumblebee said:


> With a small SSD, you always have to think about where you are installing, always having to deal with more than one drive letter.  No, an SSHD isn't as fast with all of those tasks, but really, so what, unless it's for a work system.
> If you don't have to buy this now, SSD prices are expected to fall.  TrendForce: Contract Prices of NAND Flash Products to Drop Further 10% just in 1Q19


Agree though I think 240gb is fine if you install all your games on your hdd bar maybe a few that benefit from fast load times of an ssd and everything else on the ssd which is what I do, also makes a reinstall much easier not having to download my entire steam collection every time I want to reinstall windows though thankfully that's not something I tend to do all that often unless I really need to. You can also use partitions so it's horses for courses really and what people prefer vs can afford I guess


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 29, 2019)

Wow, just a few months ago, the Sandisk SSD Plus and the *Ultra *were fetching about the same price (3 vs 5 year warranty), but now they're not.  From all I've read, they are solid drives.  

The Sammy EVO's are legendary, I've had a 500GB one in my main desktop pc for several years now.


----------



## John Naylor (Jan 29, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Boots just as fast, perhaps, is it as fast as installing programs, extracting files, copying and moving files and a host of things an ssd does better than a sshd. No. I don't follow the easier to configure content either, plug drives in relevant sata ports and that's all the configuration you need or at most changing boot priority in bios. I'd still rather have a dedicated ssd os drive or in an ideal world just a 2tb+ ssd if they weren't still somewhat expensive. I think if I was buying my drives today the only thing I'd change is likely go for a 250/500gb ssd and 2tb+ hdd though prices are cheaper now than when I bought mine.



We have not installed a HD in 7 years except for test purposes.   Just about every build we do is SSD + SSHD.   If budget restrictions exist and both can't be done, we'll install the SSHD with OS on it's own partition.   Then OS can be reinstalled when money available for adding SSD.  Since 2011,we have had:

(3) SSD failures - These were all older models, one of the failures was a warranty replacement.
(0) SSHD failures - Oldest is going on 8 years old
(0) SSD failures - Not relevant really, the ones we had when we swithced to SSHDs were justed rotated out of service when they reached 5 years old.

We have a test bed here:

Boot Time 2 TB Seagate Barracuda - 21.2 seconds
Boot Time 2 TB Seagate SSHD - 16.5 seconds
Boot Time 2 TB Samsung SSD pro - 15.6 seconds

The thing about SSD + HD is ONLY the stuff on the SSD benefits.   In your typical 250 GB + 2TB scenario, that's not enough for most folks gaming libraries.  In gaming, the SSHD scores 50% faster than the WD Black, so here's how it shakes out.

SSD + HD ... You will get the benefits of the SSD for OS and programs if you choose on the SSD.   Your gaming and data retrieval will be limited to HD performance.

SSD + SSHD... You will get the benefits of the SSD for OS and programs if you choose on the SSD.   Your gaming and data retrieval will be limited to slightly better than HD performance on 1st load.   By the time you load that game for the 3rd time, all the frequently used files will be on the SSD portion of the SSHD and the game will load faster.  So if you are the type of gamer who plays Far Cry 3 and then moves onto FC 4, by the time you load FC4 for the 3rd time, FC4's files will have replaced FC3's files on the faster portion of the drive.  If you are like my youngest son, you might play 11 different games over a weekend... the advantages are less significant.  This also works in the office as folks tend to work on a few projects at a time.  As engineer's we design plants, restaurants and buildings so I we are pretty much using the same files for  aperiod of 3 months for 2 or 2 projects...they all exist on the SSD portion and when one project is finished, those files are moved off behind the scenes and the new ones automatically replaced.  That is what was meant by "easier configuration" ...   If you want to use the remaining SSD space to play the 'currenbt game" of use current project files, you have to install / reinstall or move the file locations back and forth whenever returning to that game / project.

The reality however is that the storage speed impact is neglible in the grand scheme of things.  we most notice storage subsysystem performance on a new build when we are moving many GB of files and installing many programs .... here the performance difference can be noticeable, even more so because you are watching it, waiting to do the next thing.  Once past that 1st week, doing normal things, anything that the SSD excels at, is being done in the background (i.e backing up many GB of files).  has any secretary every typed an extra legal brief before 5 pm because he / she had an SSD ?  has any engineer completed an extra design component because they had an SSD ?   Did anyone's productivity for the day improve because their system booted up 1-3 seconds faster ?

So what is the criteria here ... bragging rights ?   or does the advantage benefit you in any way.  When I arrive in the office, my box is booting while I'm listening to phone messages and returning phone calls.  If the password screen arrives 2 seconds sooner, I'm not going to be doing much pen in hand on the phone.  When I finish work and switch to gaming, after launching the game, I'm grabbing dinner ... when a new level loads, I'm taking a bio, stretching my legs or grabbing a snackie.  I really don't care if I can compress 100 zip files or load 50 images in PhotoShop twice as fast cause I have never done any of those things.

On that testbox above, we had an OS install main programs and a game on every device and, using the BIOS boot menu, I switched what device the system booted from.  had 45 different users on the machine for 6 weeks, no one noticed.  Repeated same test with 2 laptops (SSD +_ HD on 1st  and SSHD on 2nd) ... again after 6 weeks no one noticed.

The only point I am making here is most of us are nerdy enough that we get a bit obsessive about "what to pick", and while I pursue getting the fastest performance possible within stated budget, it's not like it's actually going to have a significant effect on our lives.   

There's another thing worth mentioning ... with the SSHD, you will spend a bit more money for 1 or 2 TB of storage as compared to a HD.   However, with the OS, programs and most frequently used files on the SSD portion, the mechanical part of that HD will spin  a lot less often, thereby saving wear and tear that a HD would otherwise experience.  My guess is that is a significant reason for the longevity which we have been experiencing.

So right now, to my PoV, as long as 2 TB of storage on SSD is still a bit pricey, I don't see us moving to or recommending SSDs for large storage except in wokstation applications involving video editing, animation or rendering where there's a payback on the performance gain.  OTOH, the longevity we have been experiencing with the SSHDs and the performance gains, even of not life changing,  make the cost increase,  extra 3 years warranty over the Barracuda easily justifiable.

$60 / $95 for 1 and 2 TB SSDs versus $45 / $65 for the Barracuda.  The equivalent HD (WD Black) w/ 5 year warranty is $100 / $120 ... so from a warranty perspective, it's a no brainer.  Of course if budget not an issue, no reason not to go all out SSD.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 29, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> Boot Time 2 TB Seagate Barracuda - 21.2 seconds
> Boot Time 2 TB Seagate SSHD - 16.5 seconds
> Boot Time 2 TB Samsung SSD pro - 15.6 seconds



Man, on Win 7, it felt more like:

Boot Time 640GB WD Black - 30 seconds
Boot Time 500GB Samsung SSD Evo - 5 seconds 



John Naylor said:


> $60 / $95 for 1 and 2 TB SSD



Wait, what? Price difference or actual cost?


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jan 29, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> $60 / $95 for 1 and 2 TB SSDs


Those are  the prices of *SSHD's*, not SSD's


----------



## denixius (Feb 5, 2019)

Hello,

I purchased and integrated the drives to my PC and installed Windows 10 Home Edition. Now, I guess, I'm having problem with the "Windows 10 verison 1803 update". When I try to download this update version of Windows 10, it always take too much time, and when it's done, it is not simply installing itself, instead it takes too much time, too. Then when Windows starts itself again, it crashes and shows black screen, and the light of the monitor blinks every 3 seconds. Why? Do you have any idead about it?

I'm downloading it again via Windows 10 Update section.

Thanks,


----------



## John Naylor (Feb 5, 2019)

Sasqui said:


> Man, on Win 7, it felt more like:
> 
> Boot Time 640GB WD Black - 30 seconds
> Boot Time 500GB Samsung SSD Evo - 5 seconds
> ...




1.  That was Windows 7 Pro w/ Samsung Pro 256 SDD, Seagate7200 rpm  2 GB SSHD and Seagate 2 TB Barracuda

2.  $60 / $95 for 1 and 2 TB SSHDs (oops typo in original post) versus $45 / $65 for the Barracuda.

Actual costs ... cupla bucks more this week for the SSHDs.

$71 for 1 TB SSHD - https://pcpartpicker.com/product/n2...200rpm-hybrid-internal-hard-drive-st1000dx002
$100 for 2 TB SSHD - https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Np...200rpm-hybrid-internal-hard-drive-st2000dx002

$45 1 TB HD - https://pcpartpicker.com/product/44...tb-35-7200rpm-internal-hard-drive-st1000dm010
$60 2 TB HD - https://pcpartpicker.com/product/dCxfrH/seagate-internal-hard-drive-st1000dm003

When ya consider that ya get 5 years instead of 2 years on the warranty (250%)  ... and a bit over 50% more gaming performance (150%), the SSHD is the proverbial "no brainer".  The WD Blacks with 5 year warranty are $69 and $129 .... both have the same relative failure rates

0.45% WD Black WD2003FZEX
0.43% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST2000DX001


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 5, 2019)

wolfaust said:


> Hello,
> 
> I purchased and integrated the drives to my PC and installed Windows 10 Home Edition. Now, I guess, I'm having problem with the "Windows 10 verison 1803 update". When I try to download this update version of Windows 10, it always take too much time, and when it's done, it is not simply installing itself, instead it takes too much time, too. Then when Windows starts itself again, it crashes and shows black screen, and the light of the monitor blinks every 3 seconds. Why? Do you have any idead about it?
> 
> ...


Try it again if not maybe do another reinstall


----------



## denixius (Feb 5, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Try it again if not maybe do another reinstall


I did, but it failed with 0x8007139f, and none of comments on the websites are helped or they are same. I'm now trying to install it with Windows 10 Update Assistant. I hope this time it will work.


----------



## kapone32 (Feb 5, 2019)

I would not consider a HDD less than 4TB for a system today. There are great deals that can be found for better storage. I picked up 2 Seagate SSHDs for $74.99 the other day. If you just want SSD an ADATA SU600 would also work and it is relatively inexpensive. In terms of Sandisk I have had 3 960GB Ultra 2s and only 1 has failed in 6 years (I bought i from Ebay).


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 5, 2019)

wolfaust said:


> I did, but it failed with 0x8007139f, and none of comments on the websites are helped or they are same. I'm now trying to install it with Windows 10 Update Assistant. I hope this time it will work.



Seems to be common: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...ate-only/585e9cba-7145-4bc2-b9e7-ead20d639c90

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...ion-1803/ebcfc7ca-3634-47ec-b110-1cebb3f3224a

Mind you, those are from this past summer 



John Naylor said:


> the SSHD is the proverbial "no brainer". The WD Blacks with 5 year warranty are $69 and $129 .... both have the same relative failure rates



Didn't realize the SSHD's came with a 5 year warranty, that is a no brainier (says a WD fan).  Just wish they had a 4GB version


----------



## Borna Horvat (Feb 5, 2019)

I would recommend a Samsung 2.5" sata3 drive, because you can turn on rapid mode on those, and they go 10 times faster. If cash is an issue, then go with some ramcache app, like primocache, and buy a cheap ssd, almost any will do. Ramcache apps spend a portion of your RAM though. Regarding hdd, Seagate's are as good as any, but had most failure rates in the past, I personally prefer WD. Regarding SSHD, I don't think they are worth it at these prices. They do have a small ammount of RAM/SSD for caching the drive, but I'm not familiar with how well it's learning capability is. I think it works in the manner of storing the most run stuff into SSD part, so it will boot fast and desktop will be fast, but I think copying stuff is still slow. If they were half their current price, then maybe I'd recommend them.


----------



## kapone32 (Feb 5, 2019)

Borna Horvat said:


> I would recommend a Samsung 2.5" sata3 drive, because you can turn on rapid mode on those, and they go 10 times faster. If cash is an issue, then go with some ramcache app, like primocache, and buy a cheap ssd, almost any will do. Ramcache apps spend a portion of your RAM though. Regarding hdd, Seagate's are as good as any, but had most failure rates in the past, I personally prefer WD. Regarding SSHD, I don't think they are worth it at these prices. They do have a small ammount of RAM/SSD for caching the drive, but I'm not familiar with how well it's learning capability is. I think it works in the manner of storing the most run stuff into SSD part, so it will boot fast and desktop will be fast, but I think copying stuff is still slow. If they were half their current price, then maybe I'd recommend them.



SSHDs are great for 2 things. One is boot drive and the other is a game drive. You will see faster load times if you are playing the same 1 to 3 games off the SSHD. WD are new but they have Sandisk resources now so it makes sense for them to expand out of just HDD and SSD drives. I would get Seagate over WD only because their FIrecuda SSHDs are the 2nd generation of that architecture. YOu do only get 8GB of SSD storage on the drives though. When they are on sale anything sub $100.00 for the 2TB is in the range of a 2TB HDD anyway.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 6, 2019)

wolfaust said:


> Hello,
> 
> I purchased and integrated the drives to my PC and installed Windows 10 Home Edition. Now, I guess, I'm having problem with the "Windows 10 verison 1803 update". When I try to download this update version of Windows 10, it always take too much time, and when it's done, it is not simply installing itself, instead it takes too much time, too. Then when Windows starts itself again, it crashes and shows black screen, and the light of the monitor blinks every 3 seconds. Why? Do you have any idead about it?
> 
> ...



Ok, I had a similar problem last night, loaded Win 10 from a Microsoft downloaded ISO to DVD, everything went fine.  It prompted me to update, I accepted, when it rebooted, I get "no bootable drive found"  ...great


----------



## cornemuse (Feb 6, 2019)

I have a 'WD Blue PC 250' gig ssd with XP 64 (yeah,yeah! I know!) It boots 3-4 times faster than (WD) hdd, about 8 seconds. (diff comp, 8 gig ram, not connected to 'net, no antivirus)
I dont know how good this one is, but I like the _speed_, , , ,


----------



## denixius (Feb 7, 2019)

Sasqui said:


> Ok, I had a similar problem last night, loaded Win 10 from a Microsoft downloaded ISO to DVD, everything went fine.  It prompted me to update, I accepted, when it rebooted, I get "no bootable drive found"  ...great



Hello,

I used Windows 10 Update Assitant for updates and it worked very well! Now all is fine! 

Cheers,


----------

