This is very interesting tech! If the price will be reasonable, defo on my Want list. 🙂

It's Seagate, so I'll pass. I don't want crap that breaks after 3 years of use.

It's Seagate, so I'll pass. I don't want crap that breaks after 3 years of use.

Sure Seagate has more broken HDDs comparing to other famous companies but don't you think that all about HDDs is a bit of..luck, like lottery?

Sure Seagate has more broken HDDs comparing to other famous companies but don't you think that all about HDDs is a bit of..luck, like lottery?

I'm the most unlucky person on earth then. The only HDDs to go bad on me were always Seagate "Barracuda" ones. I keep HDDs around for a long time (I have four hard drives on my machine currently. Used to be five, but guess what. The Barracuda died.) I learned to mistrust that brand way before the whole ****storm on the internet about Seagate. That was just confirmation for me.

I'm the most unlucky person on earth then. The only HDDs to go bad on me were always Seagate "Barracuda" ones. I keep HDDs around for a long time (I have four hard drives on my machine currently. Used to be five, but guess what. The Barracuda died.) I learned to mistrust that brand way before the whole ****storm on the internet about Seagate. That was just confirmation for me.

Honestly except for specific trouble models, it seems to be total luck as far as HDD failure goes. So far i have had 1 Toshiba drive fail (500gb cant remember model). 3 WD drives (1 WD black 1TB and 2 WD green 2TB). 2 Seagate drives (a 1TB barracuda and a 500gb barracuda). 1 Hitachi drive (another 500gb cant remember model) And the HDD from my PS3, which i think was HGST. The WD green drives were the only case of the replacement drive also failing, which is why there was two failures listed for them, all other replacement drives and the second green replacement drive are still currently working. That's over about 10 years, i have had drives fail before then but too far back to remember exactly what brands they were.

I do not care much about the brand, but the model... My main guide is the Backblaze reports https://www.backblaze.com/b2/hard-drive-test-data.html

I wonder if the PS4 supports the 5GB capacity? It should support 2GB.

I wonder if the PS4 supports the 5GB capacity? It should support 2GB.

Yeh I wonder with the new ps4 coming out this would be a nice drive to use with it. Just one problem, Its seagate! I would be all over this if it was WD. I dont expect a seagate drive to last more than a year from my own experience..

It's Seagate, so I'll pass. I don't want crap that breaks after 3 years of use.

Holding grudges on HDD insdustry will only limit your options, specially when only WD and Seagate are the actual contenders. Im not saying either brand is better or worst, simply if you don't consider both, you are limiting half of your options. I have had WD fail as Seagate, the only real thing you know its going to happen is that sooner or later a mechanical hdd will fail, it might take 20+ years or a day, its just the luck of the draw. I have had all the brands fail on me, except Maxtor, i have had 2 samsung 3 seagate barracudas, and more recently 3x WD Blacks 1tb went bad after a year, also a couple of velociraptors, i also thought like you and said never again, even made a big qq thread into how WD was trash, then 6 Hitechi 5k3000 went bad with 3 years usage, almost all went bad in last 6 months.... again i said never again hitachi. Then i bought 12 Seagate 4tb, all still working fine, then i bought 6 WD Reds 6tb all been working great, i then bought 2x seagate 8tb shingle drives working fine also, and lastly i bought 6tb wd purple and still working fine. What im trying to say, is in hdd favoritism or grudges really are not good, you will lose a ton of options. The best thing to do is be prepared for hdd fails, backup and if you can outside, and buy whatever fit your budget and needs.

Sure Seagate has more broken HDDs comparing to other famous companies but don't you think that all about HDDs is a bit of..luck, like lottery?

Buying anything is a bit of luck, so how does that change the fact that from a "percent of luck" standpoint, you're more likely to be unlucky buying seagate? As an example, consoles. Now this is old information and may not be accurate anymore. But, if all i wanted in a console was a likelihood it won't die, and i had a choice of xbox 360, ps3, or wii, i'd go with the wii, or maybe the ps3, and never the xbox 360. All of them have a chance of dying, and like you said, by technicality, all of them are like a lottery, but my chances of "winning" that lottery are different If i went with an xbox 360, my chance of having a failing console was 23.7% If i went with a PS3, my chance of having a failing console was 10% And if i went with Wii, my chance of having a failing console was 2.7% And obviously, more people are worried about the information they put on a hard drive that they can't recover if it fails completely. It's very understandable, that even though all of it is a "lottery", that people would steer clear of a manufacturer that has, as of lately, had not a good track record for long-lasting drives

specially when only WD and Seagate are the actual contenders.

You say that he has limited himself, yet you have?.. WD, Seagate, HGST (subsidiary of WD i know, but different fail rates, so they are different, and it's essentially Hitachi), Toshiba (basically what use to be fujitsu) https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/188617279381045248/236176705801158658/unknown.png I'd go with a HGST drive pretty much any day of the year, based off of past experiences with Hitachi drives, and current experiences with HGST drives

Then i bought 12 Seagate 4tb, all still working fine, then i bought 6 WD Reds 6tb all been working great, i then bought 2x seagate 8tb shingle drives working fine also, and lastly i bought 6tb wd purple and still working fine. What im trying to say, is in hdd favoritism or grudges really are not good, you will lose a ton of options. The best thing to do is be prepared for hdd fails, backup and if you can outside, and buy whatever fit your budget and needs.

Your personal experiences don't matter when it comes to reality. Now, If you saw the image above you'd see seagate has improve immensely this year, which is great. However, you keep saying that it doesn't matter what drive you get because it might die or it might not. Ofcourse, yes, this is possible, but it's the likelihood of dying that is the problem. I'm glad that all your recent drives are working out great, you aren't part of the percent of drives failing within each manufacturer, which is great, for you. If i have 4 drives with a failrate of 50%, yet all 4 work for years, yet i have 4 drives of a failrate of 10%, and 3 drives of the 4 fail, does that somehow mean that the 2nd drives are worse then the first? No, it means i got lucky with the 1st, and unlucky with the 2nd, but i'd buy the drive that has a failrate of 10% over 50% any day of the week, as i am more LIKELY to be lucky with them.

I have had all the brands fail on me, except Maxtor,

I have only personally ever lost a Maxtor, along time ago. Although I once sold a Seagate to a friend for candy money, and two weeks later he told me it died. Perhaps the transportation was too much for it, who knows, even though it certainly didn't see too many kilometers between our places. Nevertheless, I only bought WDs and Samsungs after that and never lost a drive since. I've never told other people what they should or shouldn't by, however. A man should make his own decision and live with the consequences.

I have a 500GB version of these in my PS3. Works reasonably well, loads quicker. But this product here is complete garbage. 8GB cache on 2TB of space? Come on. By the time you re-access whatever you need to load quicker, the cached version will be long gone. Just too small. Needs like a 64 or 128GB SSD on board to be useful.

In the last 2 years I had 4 Seagate hard drives that just stopped working without any warning. I will never touch a Seagate hdd again. The best is that all these hard drives were between 3 and 5 years old. No thanks I will pass no matter what the price. Junk will always be junk.

Apart from Seagate being Seagate who on earth came with the idea of 8GB cache? 8GB?!?!Seriously? In this day and age? I really like the idea of SSHDs but wouldn't go for smaller than 64 GB cache.I know that 95% corporate users would be super happy about it but I wouldn't. And it would cost them very little to put at least 32gigs in.

nevermind

Only had 1 HDD fail on me (from all my Seagate drives) and it was somehow expected. Had 2 1.5TB HDD's inside of my PC, 1 for data that's important (which I regularly back-upped to a 4TB HDD) and 1 as a HDD to basically constantly write data to from shadowplay, ... so it had quite a huge workload of X Gigabytes a day at 1 point in terms of writes.

I have a 500GB version of these in my PS3. Works reasonably well, loads quicker. But this product here is complete garbage. 8GB cache on 2TB of space? Come on. By the time you re-access whatever you need to load quicker, the cached version will be long gone. Just too small. Needs like a 64 or 128GB SSD on board to be useful.

Apart from Seagate being Seagate who on earth came with the idea of 8GB cache? 8GB?!?!Seriously? In this day and age? I really like the idea of SSHDs but wouldn't go for smaller than 64 GB cache.I know that 95% corporate users would be super happy about it but I wouldn't. And it would cost them very little to put at least 32gigs in.

I agree, 8GB of NAND doesn't seem enough to effectively accelerate a 2TB drive full of data & programs. Anyway, this has been done before with other drives dating all the way back to something like maybe 2011 if I recall correctly, and performance increases were never stellar (except for boot speeds) - it was always concluded that these SSHD drives needed more NAND to be effective, and I don't think the 8GB NAND on this drive is gonna be enough. Besides, you can use Intel Storage Technology to accelerate an HDD by using an SSD as a cache, and in that instance you have a lot larger cache sizes at your disposal (does mean an extra drive though).

It's Seagate, so I'll pass. I don't want crap that breaks after 3 years of use.

I had 3 Seagate HDDs 2 of them had some firmware issue, back in 2008 this was a big fuse since 2/3 of this HDD Type died worldwide. One HDD died after 2 years. All 3 HDDs where in warranty so i RMAed them. The 3 replacement HDDs are still running techpowerup.com_Seagate-offers-firmware-fix

A 64Gb NAND chip is probably dirt cheap these days and thus excellent for Seagate to use in the product.

Very annoying they aren't using more flash or making multiple models with more flash. I would gladly pay $50 more than what my 1TB SSHD cost a couple years ago for one with 64GB of flash. The new PS4 Pro is more or less confirmed to have Sata3 so it makes sense to put an SSD in it (compared to the old Sata2 PS4) My recommendation to anyone wanting to replace their PS4/PS4 Pro HDD is to opt for a 7200rpm drive that will fit the chassis rather than a 5400rpm 8GB SSHD as overall the performance will be better. Of course an SSD is the most preferred option.