# Toshiba DT01ACA300 or Seagate ST3000DM001?



## Anusha

Looking to buy one of these drives. If I forget about the price difference, if there is any, which drive should I go for?
I'm strictly looking to buy one of the above two and want to know which drive will give the best "overall" performance.

BTW, I will be replacing my Samsung HD103SJ based two drive RAID-0 setup with one of these drives.


----------



## Kramy

Two questions.

1) Any reason you're not also considering the WD10EZEX? It's also built on a single 1TB platter.
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=74462&vpn=WD10EZEX&manufacture=Western%20Digital%20WD&promoid=1306

2) Why limit yourself to 1TB? Right now 2TB or 3TB is the best value.
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=66010&vpn=ST2000DM001&manufacture=Seagate&promoid=1306
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=66009&vpn=ST3000DM001&manufacture=Seagate&promoid=1306


----------



## B!0HaZard

The cheapest. They're both awesome.


----------



## Anusha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kramy*
> 
> Two questions.
> 1) Any reason you're not also considering the WD10EZEX? It's also built on a single 1TB platter.
> http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=74462&vpn=WD10EZEX&manufacture=Western%20Digital%20WD&promoid=1306
> 2) Why limit yourself to 1TB? Right now 2TB or 3TB is the best value.
> http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=66010&vpn=ST2000DM001&manufacture=Seagate&promoid=1306
> http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=66009&vpn=ST3000DM001&manufacture=Seagate&promoid=1306


What do you mean 1TB drives? I'm only looking at 3TB drives. Both drives I've listed are 3TB models.

I didn't think other than the Caviar Blacks, WD drives were up to par with these two drives. Blacks are so darn expensive.


----------



## Kramy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anusha*
> 
> What do you mean 1TB drives? I'm only looking at 3TB drives. Both drives I've listed are 3TB models.


Heh, my bad. These model numbers are getting crazier by the generation. I'd like it if all HDD manufacturers could come up with a human readable capacity modelnumber, like WD has. You can look at any model number for a drive that WD has released in the past 8+ years and immediately know its capacity.


----------



## Anusha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kramy*
> 
> Heh, my bad. These model numbers are getting crazier by the generation. I'd like it if all HDD manufacturers could come up with a human readable capacity modelnumber, like WD has. You can look at any model number for a drive that WD has released in the past 8+ years and immediately know its capacity.


really? where does it say it is a WD Caviar Blue drive in its model number? WD10EZEX


----------



## Kramy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anusha*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kramy*
> 
> Heh, my bad. These model numbers are getting crazier by the generation. I'd like it if all HDD manufacturers could come up with a human readable capacity modelnumber, like WD has. You can look at any model number for a drive that WD has released in the past 8+ years and immediately know its capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> really? where does it say it is a WD Caviar Blue drive in its model number? WD10EZEX
Click to expand...

10 - 1TB

Every consumer drive WD has released in the past 8 years... maybe longer... conforms to a pattern. There are two characters first, then there's 2 capacity digits, and then some models (usually Blacks) have two sub generation digits. (WD1001FALS - 1TB Black) (WD1002FAEX - 1TB Black) (WD10EZEX - 1TB Blue)

I think they have a PDF describing it... ahh, here it is!
www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/other/2579-001028.pdf


----------



## Anusha

OK. Anyways, doesn't Western Digital make a Caviar Blue 3TB drive? I can only find the 3TB versions of Black, Green and Red.


----------



## Kramy

Nope, no 3TB Blue.

http://wdc.com/en/products/internal/desktop/


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kramy*
> 
> Heh, my bad. These model numbers are getting crazier by the generation. I'd like it if all HDD manufacturers could come up with a human readable capacity modelnumber, like WD has. You can look at any model number for a drive that WD has released in the past 8+ years and immediately know its capacity.


ST3000 = 3 TB. ACA300 = 3 TB.

None of the hard drive manufacturers are better at naming than the rest. I couldn't read a WD model name if my life depended on it, but that's because I never took the time to learn it. Hitachi model names are second nature, because they are all I use.


----------



## adridu59

Toshiba drives are Hitachi's (they have sold a part of their fabs to Tosh).


----------



## Anusha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *adridu59*
> 
> Toshiba drives are Hitachi's (they have sold a part of their fabs to Tosh).


Yes but Hitachi does not have a 3TB 1TB/platter drive. Their largest drive with 1TB/platter is 1TB.


----------



## Redwoodz

Seagate
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3558/25-35-inch-hard-disk-round-up-battle-of-the-terabytes


----------



## Anusha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Seagate
> http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3558/25-35-inch-hard-disk-round-up-battle-of-the-terabytes


but the Toshiba isn't in the list. Rumour has it that it is faster, but like it said, it is just rumour.


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anusha*
> 
> but the Toshiba isn't in the list. Rumour has it that it is faster, but like it said, it is just rumour.


Faster than what? No one has even reviewed the Toshiba yet,and I really don't see Hitachi(Toshiba) suddenly beating out WD and Seagate after being behind them in performance for oh,let's see....the last 15 years?


----------



## B!0HaZard

The Toshiba is a 7K3000 AFAIK, just find a review of that.


----------



## Anusha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Faster than what? No one has even reviewed the Toshiba yet,and I really don't see Hitachi(Toshiba) suddenly beating out WD and Seagate after being behind them in performance for oh,let's see....the last 15 years?


well, i have a friend who has the 2TB models from Toshiba and Seagate. He says Toshiba feels faster, and CrystalDiskMark also shows that.

This is from his PC.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*
> 
> The Toshiba is a 7K3000 AFAIK, just find a review of that.


I don't think so. That Hitachi is a 600GB per platter x 5 platter drive. You cannot compare them.

Funny thing is, Hitachi doesn't have a 1TB/platter drive bigger than 1TB.


----------



## adridu59

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anusha*
> 
> Yes but Hitachi does not have a 3TB 1TB/platter drive. Their largest drive with 1TB/platter is 1TB.


I see.


----------



## Kramy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*
> 
> ST3000 = 3 TB. ACA300 = 3 TB.
> 
> None of the hard drive manufacturers are better at naming than the rest. I couldn't read a WD model name if my life depended on it, but that's because I never took the time to learn it. Hitachi model names are second nature, because they are all I use.


Hitachi drives generally make sense too - 7K1000.D, 7K1000.C make perfect sense.... 7200RPM, 1TB, Generation C/D

Toshiba drives are too new for me to have absorbed their naming scheme, and Seagate keeps changing theirs.









I counter your ST3000 with a ST95005620AS - which is _not_ 9.5TB. The model number is somewhat close to the ST3320620AS, but one is a 6 year old 3.5" drive, and the other is a 2.5" Hybrid Drive. They're approximately 4 generations apart. What I'm trying to get at is, Seagate shoves letters around and adds more, rather than having a uniform naming scheme that is easy to the eye to figure out. If you know what you're looking for (or have a guide) you can still figure them out, but WD's have the easiest to spot patterns, and Hitachi is probably right after them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anusha*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Faster than what? No one has even reviewed the Toshiba yet,and I really don't see Hitachi(Toshiba) suddenly beating out WD and Seagate after being behind them in performance for oh,let's see....the last 15 years?
> 
> 
> 
> well, i have a friend who has the 2TB models from Toshiba and Seagate. He says Toshiba feels faster, and CrystalDiskMark also shows that.
> 
> This is from his PC.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind those drives are filled to different capacities, so CrystalDiskMark is testing them at different points. Both should be empty for an accurate comparison. Once a drive hits 96% capacity, performance is already starting to drop off sharply...


----------



## Anusha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kramy*
> 
> Hitachi drives generally make sense too - 7K1000.D, 7K1000.C make perfect sense.... 7200RPM, 1TB, Generation C/D
> Toshiba drives are too new for me to have absorbed their naming scheme, and Seagate keeps changing theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I counter your ST3000 with a ST95005620AS - which is _not_ 9.5TB. The model number is somewhat close to the ST3320620AS, but one is a 6 year old 3.5" drive, and the other is a 2.5" Hybrid Drive. They're approximately 4 generations apart. What I'm trying to get at is, Seagate shoves letters around and adds more, rather than having a uniform naming scheme that is easy to the eye to figure out. If you know what you're looking for (or have a guide) you can still figure them out, but WD's have the easiest to spot patterns, and Hitachi is probably right after them.
> Keep in mind those drives are filled to different capacities, so CrystalDiskMark is testing them at different points. Both should be empty for an accurate comparison. Once a drive hits 96% capacity, performance is already starting to drop off sharply...


Man they are filled almost up to the same point. Anyways, that's why I wanted to get you guys' opinion, without just deciding by CrystalDiskMark score.


----------



## Kramy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anusha*
> 
> Man they are filled almost up to the same point. Anyways, that's why I wanted to get you guys' opinion, without just deciding by CrystalDiskMark score.


One has half the free space of the other. That's a CrystalDiskMark benchmark - a _file_ benchmark, which tests performance wherever the file lands on the drive, and is subject to problems like high NTFS fragmentation. The drive that has half the free space is handicapped. This could be further accentuated by user actions before the benchmark - something as simple as moving a 160MB nvidia driver download from the Toshiba to the Seagate might open up space on the Toshiba much nearer to the edge, giving it a huge advantage in that benchmark.

When dealing with full drives, I recommend using benchmarks that test the whole drive irrespective of the data they contain - HDTune, for example. When using file benchmarks (and desiring a valid comparison), you should make sure both drives are empty. (Or partitioned exactly the same, with an empty partition at the same LBA) Anything else and it's not really a valid comparison.


----------



## Anusha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kramy*
> 
> One has half the free space of the other. That's a CrystalDiskMark benchmark - a _file_ benchmark, which tests performance wherever the file lands on the drive, and is subject to problems like high NTFS fragmentation. The drive that has half the free space is handicapped. This could be further accentuated by user actions before the benchmark - something as simple as moving a 160MB nvidia driver download from the Toshiba to the Seagate might open up space on the Toshiba much nearer to the edge, giving it a huge advantage in that benchmark.
> When dealing with full drives, I recommend using benchmarks that test the whole drive irrespective of the data they contain - HDTune, for example. When using file benchmarks (and desiring a valid comparison), you should make sure both drives are empty. (Or partitioned exactly the same, with an empty partition at the same LBA) Anything else and it's not really a valid comparison.


OK, you have a point.

i found fresh drive benches. does this mean the Toshiba is better, or do i have to look for other benches too?

they are not from the same system though. the Seagate one is running on a Z68 board. no idea about the Toshiba. And Toshiba is using a 4GB test size compared to 1GB on the Seagate.

Toshiba DT01ACA300


Seagate ST3000DM001


maybe i should just wait for a review to surface.

BTW, forgot to mention. The Seagate is $117 and the Toshiba is $127.


----------



## Kramy

Looks like the Toshiba is faster.

Different test systems can cause vast differences in 4K performance levels, so it's hard to measure which one is the true winner there - but sequential and 512K shouldn't differ all that much... the 4000MB test is more accurate than the 1000MB test, so if anything the Toshiba is slightly handicapped there.

Smaller test sizes test the drive's cache more and more, the closer you get to the cache size. That means smaller test sizes should result in higher numbers.

Here's my WD Green with two different test sizes. One fits in cache (50MB is less than the 64MB it is equipped with), and the other doesn't.


----------



## Anusha

After a lot of thought, I went with the Toshiba. I will post some benchmark scores when I get it.

Also getting a 3TB WD green drive with 1TB/platter. $128 for the Toshiba, $116 for the WD. Not bad aye? Also selling my old drives so that I can recover the cost of the Toshiba. =)

Now it is time to upgrade the SSD, but that's for another thread.


----------



## DodoBird

As I couldn't find out which one is better performer and durable I bought them both, so in some future I will know if Toshiba lasts longer than Seagate. However, for the sake of price comparison, I have also added WDB and IBM Deskstar disks. Deskstar is cheaper than WD Black which has high price tag but is refered as the fastest 2T disk having price higher than any above mentioned 3T disks. Now you can interpret results as you wish...



Remark: Neglect the difference in temperatures, 3T disks are better cooled than IBM and WD.



Remark: N disk is Seagate, Q disk is Toshiba.


----------



## iwmtv

http://www.storagereview.com/toshiba_announces_terabyteperplatter_35inch_dt01aca_desktop_hdds

Toshiba's Storage Products Business Unit has launched the DT01ACA Desktop, a new series of high-density 7,200 RPM SATA hard drives. DT01ACA drives feature terabyte-per-platter designs with one, two, or three platters (500GB to 3TB).


----------



## Anusha

That one I have listed in the poll is the 3TB version of that same series.

I have since bought the drive.

Head here for benchmarks of the 3TB Toshiba drive.
http://www.anushand.com/2012/12/toshiba-dt01aca300-benchmarks.html

I also bought the 1TB/platter model of Western Digital Caviar Green Drive.
http://www.anushand.com/2012/12/western-digital-green-wd30ezrx-00dc0b0.html


----------



## DodoBird

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DodoBird*
> 
> As I couldn't find out which one is better performer and durable I bought them both, so in some future I will know if Toshiba lasts longer than Seagate. However, for the sake of price comparison, I have also added WDB and IBM Deskstar disks. Deskstar is cheaper than WD Black which has high price tag but is refered as the fastest 2T disk having price higher than any above mentioned 3T disks. Now you can interpret results as you wish...
> 
> 
> 
> Remark: Neglect the difference in temperatures, 3T disks are better cooled than IBM and WD.
> 
> 
> 
> Remark: N disk is Seagate, Q disk is Toshiba.


I'ts been long time since I have published the above performance charts, or bit more precisely drives has been online for 10179 hours 24/7. Well here are some images and some resume later. Seagate ST3000DM001 starts to fail slowly.



And here is what smartctl says:



and



*Summary:*: All disks work 24/7, but not on high load all the time. Majority of cheap disks I buy are just for saving old stuff, while more expensive disks I need for virtualization so there is higher load on them). SSDs has shown endurance beyond my expectation, lets see..

*Some personal conclusions:*
- Regarding cheap models of Toshiba and IBM Deskstar - they look better than cheap models of Seagate. I would expect that both Toshiba and IBM (considering Toshiba bought pattens from IBM) would work rather similar so these two would be my choice for cheaper disks.

*New Toys:*
- I use SSDs Crucial SSDs (960 GB) for virtualization. They are pretty loaded, looking forward how long they will survive several VMWare (Windows 2003 servers), 24/7 load.
- Seagate Constellation 4T is new one. I wanted to test it, although next ones will be IBM 6TB He (SAS has almost same price as SATA).

*Old but strong:*
- I must congratulate to old OCZ 100GB - LE (Limited Edition), it's been boot windows disk for 28560 hours, 24/7 with typical windows load.
- Congrats go to Western Digital Black - FASS model for 25701 hours online (less load than SSD mentioned above).

*For those who are interested - here is performance chart of Crucial SSD 960GB* on LSI SAS 2 (chip LSI 2008, model LSI 2011 IT PassThru mode (SMART Enabled)), no RAID, just JBOD and Seagate 4T Constellation on Intel motherboard SATA 3 controller:



I hope this comparison helps to someone...
Good luck.

PS: IBM ServeRAID M1015 is impressive controller with price more than affordable for what it offers (150 usd ebay) - highly recommend (crossflasshing possible as mentioned above). I used RocketRaid 640L for short time - it's a joke, not the controller (albeit priced only 70 usd). Also I noticed problems with cheap RocketRaid when copying files above 2GB, some files have CRC error after copying to another drive. When I said joke, it means RocketRaid runs 4 SSD benchmarks simultaneously and read speed falls down to 100 MB/s (while one drive benchmark has 500 MB/s). IBM ServeRAID runs 6 SSDs benchmark each having aprox transfer of 500 MB/s on each of them. LSI/IBM can run circles arround Marvel's that are built in onto the motherboard too.


----------



## Kramy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DodoBird*
> 
> *Summary:*: All disks work 24/7, but not on high load all the time. Majority of cheap disks I buy are just for saving old stuff, while more expensive disks I need for virtualization so there is higher load on them). SSDs has shown endurance beyond my expectation, lets see..
> 
> *Some personal conclusions:*
> - Regarding cheap models of Toshiba and IBM Deskstar - they look better than cheap models of Seagate. I would expect that both Toshiba and IBM (considering Toshiba bought pattens from IBM) would work rather similar so these two would be my choice for cheaper disks.


BackBlaze came to the same conclusion recently.

http://blog.backblaze.com/2014/01/21/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/










Better replace that dying Seagate before the number of uncorrectable errors gets absurd!


----------



## Anusha

Guess I made the right choice by going with the Toshiba then, I've been using the drive for more than 15 months without issues. But I do have a 3TB WDC Green for backups anyways.


----------



## FCVWG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anusha*
> 
> Guess I made the right choice by going with the Toshiba then, I've been using the drive for more than 15 months without issues. But I do have a 3TB WDC Green for backups anyways.


Hi, could you please give the Toshiba CrystalDiskMark test and publish it to see results?, I beg you


----------



## Tasoli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FCVWG*
> 
> Hi, could you please give the Toshiba CrystalDiskMark test and publish it to see results?, I beg you


He did that already:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anusha*
> 
> OK, you have a point.
> 
> i found fresh drive benches. does this mean the Toshiba is better, or do i have to look for other benches too?
> 
> they are not from the same system though. the Seagate one is running on a Z68 board. no idea about the Toshiba. And Toshiba is using a 4GB test size compared to 1GB on the Seagate.
> 
> Toshiba DT01ACA300
> 
> 
> Seagate ST3000DM001
> 
> 
> maybe i should just wait for a review to surface.
> 
> BTW, forgot to mention. The Seagate is $117 and the Toshiba is $127.


----------



## DodoBird

Seagate has problems with vibrations, drive is half dead in my server. it was used to store old movies, so very light usage. I have read here on forums that cheap seagates die way too fast. can't find links now, but browse and you will see.

If you have money go with WD Black or Seagate Constelation or IBM UltraStar - but they are all expensive - therefore only option is IBM Deskstar or Toshiba.


----------



## Peon

Ever since Seagate discontinued the Barracuda Green line 2 years ago and made regular old Barracuda the budget drive, quality* has taken a huge plunge. Between that and Seagate's leadership in ever-shortening HDD warranties, I can't say I'm surprised - they clearly don't stand by their product at all.

* And not just in durability/reliability either - I've heard of people who have tried to RAID identical Barracudas from the same batch, only to discover that the performance of the individual drives was wildly (20-50 MB/s) different.


----------



## DodoBird

Well yes I agree with you that Seagate has some problems, whenever I used them, and I use lots of hard drives, somehow Seagate has some fast track to death...

This really surprises me, as per few articles (Toms Hardware I think) where I have found that only Seagate builds all parts of their hard drives themself. I thought it was some added value, but apparently isn't.


----------



## Peon

What I've heard is that Seagate's current strategy is to try and become the Acer of hard drives - they optimize for low prices and checkbox features like 7200 RPM while ignoring everything else, hoping that people will buy their drives simply for the low cost per GB. If that drive turns out to be noisy, slow, or unreliable, Seagate doesn't care - they've already got your money.

I'm just glad that WD and Toshiba have not decided to follow in Seagate's footsteps - I'll happily take a 5900 RPM WD Green or (better yet) the DT01ACA300 mentioned in this thread over a 7200 RPM Barracuda any day, simply because I know exactly what I'm getting with WD and Toshiba drives.


----------



## ronsuresh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DodoBird*
> 
> As I couldn't find out which one is better performer and durable I bought them both, so in some future I will know if Toshiba lasts longer than Seagate. However, for the sake of price comparison, I have also added WDB and IBM Deskstar disks. Deskstar is cheaper than WD Black which has high price tag but is refered as the fastest 2T disk having price higher than any above mentioned 3T disks. Now you can interpret results as you wish...


Hi, my first post.







I just bought the 3TB Toshiba DT01ACA300 few days ago this May. Indicated on the sticker says it's Dec 2013, the newer batch I suppose. I ran benchmark with my disk around 10% filled. It seems the newer batch was upgraded with a higher burst rate. It is now more than twice that of the Seagate ST3000DM001. But the benchmarking I did is from windows XP x64 (I don't own windows 7







). Does XP and 7 make a difference?

Power on count is 7 days and counting. Hope it's reliability is as good as Anusha's.


----------



## Anusha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ronsuresh*
> 
> Hi, my first post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just bought the 3TB Toshiba DT01ACA300 few days ago this May. Indicated on the sticker says it's Dec 2013, the newer batch I suppose. I ran benchmark with my disk around 10% filled. It seems the newer batch was upgraded with a higher burst rate. It is now more than twice that of the Seagate ST3000DM001. But the benchmarking I did is from windows XP x64 (I don't own windows 7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). Does XP and 7 make a difference?
> 
> Power on count is 7 days and counting. Hope it's reliability is as good as Anusha's.


Well, I didn't say anything about the reliability of the drives. It was someone else.

Though, I haven't had any issues with mine. Had been using the Toshiba since December 2012.

On the other hand, I wonder if the burst rate is system specific or controller specific. I had a Z68 board back then. Now I have a Z87 board and haven't checked how the drive performs with it. However, I won't be able to do a test on an empty drive. I've got about 400GB left in the drive.


----------



## ronsuresh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anusha*
> 
> Well, I didn't say anything about the reliability of the drives. It was someone else.
> 
> Though, I haven't had any issues with mine. Had been using the Toshiba since December 2012.
> 
> On the other hand, I wonder if the burst rate is system specific or controller specific. I had a Z68 board back then. Now I have a Z87 board and haven't checked how the drive performs with it. However, I won't be able to do a test on an empty drive. I've got about 400GB left in the drive.


To pass the first few months is critical. 16 months sounds pretty reliable to me. I had a 2.5" drive in the pass died just 48 days of usage!

What is your days of power on counts in hd tune?

I think it's part hdd and part controller specific. I'm using H77 motherboard.


----------



## ronsuresh

By the way those Toshiba's temp are just fantastic usually between 34C to 39C. I had a wd black installed a pinky gap below it's bay and it's temp never exceeded 40c.


----------



## Peon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ronsuresh*
> 
> To pass the first few months is critical. 16 months sounds pretty reliable to me. I had a 2.5" drive in the pass died just 48 days of usage!


As an anecdotal counterpoint, I had a WD Green die on me last year after 3 years and 2 months of usage, _just_ after the 3 year warranty expired. Good thing my credit card has extended warranty protection so I ended up getting a full refund (including sales tax) on it, courtesy of my bank.


----------



## Axaion

I'm on my 3rd DT01ACA300 now, first one went to 2k+ damaged sectors in two weeks or so, 2nd one vibrated enough to make my case raffle (Nanoxia DS1)..

3rd one (from RMA on the 1st one) Is now showing .. dead sectors after two weeks of use, and uncorrectable sectors..

On the other hand ive got a old 500GB seagate 7200.10 i think, that has yet to develop one single error except going RAW once, which i just recovered from at that point

6.2% Damaged Sectors according to HD Tune on the new one.. Oh joy.


----------



## Sean Webster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Axaion*
> 
> I'm on my 3rd DT01ACA300 now, first one went to 2k+ damaged sectors in two weeks or so, 2nd one vibrated enough to make my case raffle (Nanoxia DS1)..
> 
> 3rd one (from RMA on the 1st one) Is now showing .. dead sectors after two weeks of use, and uncorrectable sectors..
> 
> On the other hand ive got a old 500GB seagate 7200.10 i think, that has yet to develop one single error except going RAW once, which i just recovered from at that point
> 
> 6.2% Damaged Sectors according to HD Tune on the new one.. Oh joy.


Geeze you have bad luck!


----------



## Axaion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean Webster*
> 
> Geeze you have bad luck!


Yup, i noticed theyre all the started with Y3 in the serial number.. so maybe a horrible bad batch heh

Hopefully i can get them to send me a WD Red instead, price difference is only a few bucks


----------



## larymoencurly

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Peon*
> 
> As an anecdotal counterpoint, I had a WD Green die on me last year after 3 years and 2 months of usage, _just_ after the 3 year warranty expired. Good thing my credit card has extended warranty protection so I ended up getting a full refund (including sales tax) on it, courtesy of my bank.


Which card? I've had very good luck with Visa and American Express extended warranties, but I've heard of awful things with Mastercard. I don't know about Discover.


----------



## Peon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *larymoencurly*
> 
> Which card? I've had very good luck with Visa and American Express extended warranties, but I've heard of awful things with Mastercard. I don't know about Discover.


AFAIK, the warranty programs are set up by the bank issuing the card, not by Visa/MC/Amex. In my case, I actually traded my top-tier rewards Mastercard for a no-fee Visa with the same bank between when I purchased the drive in 2010 and when I made the warranty claim in 2013, but the insurance company underwriting the program (Allianz in my case) still honored my claim since I was still the bank's customer at the end of the day.


----------



## larymoencurly

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *larymoencurly*
> 
> Which card? I've had very good luck with Visa and American Express extended warranties, but I've heard of awful things with Mastercard. I don't know about Discover.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Peon*
> 
> AFAIK, the warranty programs are set up by the bank issuing the card, not by Visa/MC/Amex. In my case, I actually traded my top-tier rewards Mastercard for a no-fee Visa with the same bank between when I purchased the drive in 2010 and when I made the warranty claim in 2013, but the insurance company underwriting the program (Allianz in my case) still honored my claim since I was still the bank's customer at the end of the day.


I was wondering because I've had good luck with Visa and Amex extended warranty claims, and the coverage was through them, not any bank. OTOH a friend of mine bought a hard disk for $50 with his Mastercard, and when it failed, MC told him to get a written estimate but wouldn't reimburse him for the estimate. Eventually they agreed to refund his money if he just shipped the hard disk to them.


----------



## DaveLT

Sorry for bumping 6 months later but I've been using the dt01aca300 drive for almost a year now and it's been really fast for a HDD, it is much faster than the Hitachi 7K1000.C that I used to use 4K wise (I don't care much for sequential)

As for vibrations and noise, HDDs sure have come a long way. The 7K1000.C was noticeably noisier just spinning and when seeking it made an appalling racket apart from the vibration which was colossal! But in all fairness that HDD shares similarity with the WD1002FAEX which I had at the same time in terms of performance and acoustics.
Still not as colossal as the Seagate 1.5TB I used to have. That died quickly and before dying made an impressive racket 24/7


----------



## Turson

Hi forum.

In Newegg.com, Why the Toshiba HDD's desktop have low rating?
Toshiba HDD's in Newegg.com

In Seagate still failures?

In local stores, my choice shall be between:

1000GB: DT01ACA100 Vs. ST1000DM003
Or
500 GB: DT01ACA050 Vs. ST500DM002

Looking durability, and good qualities.
(Time of rising dollar)









PS: WD not available over here.


----------



## vpex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Turson*
> 
> Hi forum.
> 
> In Newegg.com, Why the Toshiba HDD's desktop have low rating?
> Toshiba HDD's in Newegg.com
> 
> In Seagate still failures?
> 
> In local stores, my choice shall be between:
> 
> 1000GB: DT01ACA100 Vs. ST1000DM003
> Or
> 500 GB: DT01ACA050 Vs. ST500DM002
> 
> Looking durability, and good qualities.
> (Time of rising dollar)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: WD not available over here.


The Toshiba's do have a very poor ranking on NewEgg; the NewEgg reviews aren't the best indicator to base a purchase on IMO.

The reviews don't show how many are bad as a proportion of the total amount they have sold which is a shame. NewEgg could have bought a bad batch from their distributor or there could have been a problem in shipping the drives, this could explain the low score.

Consumers could be unfamiliar with Toshiba drives further contributing to the lower score after all they are the smallest HDD manufacturer coming in at ~16% market share in 2013. _I don't know what proportion of their sales are to retail._ To put this in perspective retail channels contribute to ~19% of Seagate's yearly sales.

You also don't know how the people on NewEgg were using their drives, I'd only take their consumer reviews lightly.

Look into 1TB drives they should be the best value compared to 500GB, I do find it hard to believe you can't buy WD via retail.

Either way the ST1000DM003 is a great drive as is the Toshiba DT01ACA100. Between them buy the cheapest.


----------

