Better Drive for Longevity: WD Blue WD10EZEX vs Seagate ST1000DM010 & Crucial MX500 SSD

Let me dig up the topic, because my Seagate ST1000DM003 drive after more than 9 years looks like it's raining and I want to buy a new similar 1TB.
I'm thinking the same, i.e. Segate ST1000DM010 or WD Blue WD10EZEX with a speed of 7200, at least that's what x-kom shows.
I reject the P300, I've heard of returns, some failures - it doesn't convince me.
Have your opinions changed after more than 5 years? How do you rate the durability of these drives compared to their counterparts from 5, 10 years ago?
I want to buy the disk as a second one next to the system SSD. I will use it everyday.
I was thinking about SSD, but I have a system, I don't care about speed and price. But how do you think they compare to these HDDs when it comes to durability and failure rate? for example, the apple of my eye is the SSD Crucial MX500.
If I had information that I can count on SSD more when it comes to life, less failure rate, I would think about it. By this I mean time to make a copy in case you notice something going on.




----
Taken from the topic: Which drive is better WD or Seagate
by dt1 on 18 Jan 2023 02:41

If the motherboard and housing allows it, I suggest 2xHDD RAID1. If the budget is a problem, you can even buy used, better from different manufacturers but with similar parameters (SATA, RPM, cache) and with an acceptable SMART status.
I currently have Seagate ST1000DM003-1ER162 - it still works, the second one fell and was replaced with Toshiba HDWD110.

If you care about the life of the drive, give a wide berth to WD Blue, Green and cheap Seagate. With WD, I recommend Red, Purple, Black, they are more expensive, but more reliable and less emergency.

Not every WD RED is worth buying. For example, the RED models of the EFAX series should be avoided, they are SMR models (except for two capacities).

And not every blue should be avoided. Old model WD10EZEX, still available, it was still the correct model. The newer ones are actually better to avoid.

dt1 wrote:

The newer ones are actually better to avoid.

which newer? I haven't seen a newer blue.

The Black series is interesting, supposedly better than Blue, but more than twice as expensive

WD10EZRZ - CMR, but 5400 RPM (basically a rebranded old GREEN series).

Hello, you wrote which drive is better WD or Seagate I will answer you this question yes it depends on what because if you count on speed and capacity or lifespan I recommend Seagate 2TB 7200RPM for the second product it is WD I recommend Blue series drives that have less wear heads, use less energy if that's what you care about, and are ideal for desktop computers. On the other hand, I can also recommend you the WD Black series this series is for the user who cares about creating the best system performance and perfect gaming experience these are great drives because I currently have just such a model and I have been using it for a very long time it is 2TB 3.5' 7200RPM 64MB cache. What's more, I can recommend you, I'm sure that my opinion will be useful to you and is exhaustive in the subject of HDD drives.

Regards, Aleksander sovereign of the Second Republic of Poland

MSIAEGIS-Ti3VR7RE wrote:

if you count on speed and capacity or lifespan, I recommend seagate 2tb 7200rpm

What specific model does your colleague have in mind?
Because such an opinion without specifying the model makes no sense, considering that Seagate offers several 2TB / 7200 models, and adding even older series that can be found somewhere there, it does a lot.

MSIAEGIS-Ti3VR7RE wrote:

WD recommend the Blue series drives which have less wear heads, consume less power if you care about it and are ideal for desktop computers

Sounds a bit like marketing babble. The model is missing again, and the blue series can be a 5400 disk, 7200 disk, cmr disk, smr disk. As for the revelations about the wear of the heads, even the manufacturer's marketing team defeated my colleague and I guess that my colleague will not be able to cite any reliable data on this subject. As for the amount of electricity, it's hard to say, because it is not known which model blue has. A colleague has thoughts.

MSIAEGIS-Ti3VR7RE wrote:

I can also recommend you the WD Black series this series is for the user who cares about creating the best system performance and perfect gaming experience these are great drives because I currently have just such a model and I have been using it for a very long time it is 2tb 3.5' 7200rpm 64mb cache

Again, no model, and there are several. The mythical black models may amaze with their performance, but not as advertised. As it turns out in tests, this efficiency does not differ much from the structurally comparable blue series with similar parameters (i.e. cmr, 7200).

MSIAEGIS-Ti3VR7RE wrote:

What's more, I can recommend you, I'm sure that my opinion will be useful to you and is exhaustive in the subject of HDD drives

The review is far from exhaustive. Not a single model of the drive is given, and there are also a lot of statements that are not reflected in any reliable tests. This is a more subjective evaluation of several drive families, but without any details whatsoever.

MSIAEGIS-Ti3VR7RE wrote:

depends on what because if you count on speed and capacity or life, I recommend seagate 2tb 7200rpm

I don't think these 3 parameters go hand in hand ?
it seems to me that the 5200 will live longer from a logical approach. On the other hand, 2TB is often two platters inside, which is, as I understand it, a greater chance of failure than one platter, and the 1TB version often has one.

dt1 wrote:

The mythical black models may amaze with their performance, but not as advertised. As it turns out in tests, this efficiency does not differ much from the structurally comparable blue series with similar parameters (i.e. cmr, 7200).

Only the 5-year warranty is conspicuous. But I wonder what the lifespan looks like in reality compared to blue, is there any point in paying more than twice as much.

I can't find this material now, but once on a forum with Cyrillic I found a post where a guest compared blue and black models with similar parameters (same capacity, same cache, more or less similar year).

He compared the weight, the difference was 1 gram (which at 600-700g is within the measurement error).
He compared the sound of the launch (tones and clicks of the warhead assembly at launch - something like an acoustic signature) - they came out very close to him
He compared the speeds in the benchmark - the averaged results of several measurements were very close.

He compared the electronics, disassembled both and compared the interior.

Then he came to the conclusion that they differed most in the color of the sticker and the length of the warranty. Although who knows, maybe there are some subtle differences in the software, but as he said, in the tests it was not too noticeable.

The older black series seem to be more different.

Black was always bought mainly for the guarantee, once (teen years ago) the surcharge was not great, so it was worth it.

I see that my opinion was not useful, so please look for disks by models, such as Barracuda ST2000DM008. As for the statement 'adamm1709', before you say that these 3 options do not go hand in hand, he will prove this thesis? Then colleague 'dt1', even though there are a dozen or so models of these drives, the one who is looking for the best one should look at the drive page, this is: https://www.seagate.com/pl/pl/ or https://www.westerndigital.com/ pl-pl/brand/wd and find the best one.

Just ST2000DM008 is rather an example of a model that is not worth buying, it is an SMR drive and only for this reason it is better to look for another model

Added after 2 [minutes]:

MSIAEGIS-Ti3VR7RE wrote:

I see that my opinion was not helpful

The opinion was not useful because it did not contain disk models.

Added after 2 [minutes]:
The opinion was not useful because it did not contain disk models.


I agree because I did not specify specific models. I can only say that I know a lot of disk models that I have had a lot of experience with them.