Hi all, thought this might be interesting, since the price hit its lowest mark (according to camelx3). Seagate BarraCuda 1 TB 2.5 inch Internal Hard Drive (7 mm Form Factor, 128 MB Cache SATA 6 GB/s up to 140 MB/s) is available for £42.98 @ Amazon UK.
All comments (43)
AsadJani
1 Oct 17#1
Wat £42? I got 2tb for the same price
Jay080286 to AsadJani
1 Oct 17#2
Got a link?
CampGareth to AsadJani
1 Oct 17#3
3.5" or 2.5"? 2.5 is always more expensive, which is a shame as I'm considering using them in NASes for the lower power consumption/heat output.
kamikazilucas
1 Oct 17#4
horrible deal, 1tb usually go for 30 not over 40, i got a 2tb one for 43 on 20% off warehouse deals anyway
condracky to kamikazilucas
1 Oct 17#5
2.5"?
kamikazilucas to condracky
2 Oct 17#19
3.5
Strzelecki
1 Oct 17#6
Not bad, shame it's not 7200 for better I/O. Where's the £30 or 2TB deal then? :stuck_out_tongue:
rgbws
1 Oct 17#7
I don't see this as a deal at all. It's 5400rpm first of all, whereas the typical price of a 1TB 7200rpm hard drive is about £37-41. I don't understand how so many people are voting hot on so many eh deals. Unless you desperately need only a 2.5", this is not something to even think about.
yeomansinc to rgbws
1 Oct 17#10
If you have a laptop, or looking to upgrade the capacity on your console, then 2.5" is what you need and this is a deal to think about.
They don't make 2.5" just for someone to point out that you can get more for less with 3.5".
abhijitdash123
1 Oct 17#8
Good price on this fast hdd. Thank you @PIOM
bens123
1 Oct 17#9
It depresses me that HDD prices are still so high that this is considered a good deal. Probably a conspiracy by the technocratic elites to keep us all in the cloud. All my Seagate drives have died on me prematurely (at least 5).
maddogb
1 Oct 17#11
5400rpm welcome to 1995 folks :grin:
rev6 to maddogb
2 Oct 17#12
It's 2.5*, 5400RPM is normal.
maddogb to rev6
2 Oct 17#13
i can read and was quite aware it was a 2½ drive, it's only normal because ignorant people tolerate it, 5400 was normal in 1995 for 3.5 drives as well but not any more and for good reason.
rev6 to maddogb
2 Oct 17#14
Wowsers.
CampGareth to maddogb
2 Oct 17#18
I'm guessing you mean because 7200rpm will have faster sequential access rates and shorter rotational latency for random access. That's great, but remember they're also noisier, hotter and more power hungry. If I still had a laptop with a HDD I would not want 7200rpm for those reasons. Tbh I wouldn't want 7200rpm in my NAS either, so long as a drive can hit 110MB/s sequential gigabit ethernet will be the limiting factor.
maddogb to CampGareth
2 Oct 17#26
what puzzles me is you throw around those terms making it sound like you are not ignorant of the facts, but in reality fail to understand that the generalisation that all 7200rpm drivers are hotter and noisier than their 5400rpm counterparts is just wrong.
CampGareth to maddogb
2 Oct 17#30
What... they will literally always be hotter. Most of the power consumption comes from keeping the platters spinning against air resistance, spin the platters faster, more air resistance to overcome. Unless there's some idiot drive manufacturer using motors that're only 1% efficient, a faster drive will always consume more power.
Here, Tom's hardware reviewing a desktop drive's power consumption, note that *generally* the 5400rpms are drawing less power than the 7200rpms. There's an oddly power hungry WD Green in there though which brings us to the point. If you want to argue that the generalisation is wrong, you're going to need to show a lot of data as evidence. If you want to argue that this particular drive model bucks the trend, that'll need just one good review... though I'm not sure that exists, google doesn't throw up many reviews for this model.
*edit* why not have more data, here's idle power consumption for 48 2.5" HDDs, 24th entry has 0.64W idle draw, 25th has 0.67W. I'm gonna call 0.65W the midpoint.
For 5400rpm drives, 21 are below the midpoint, 10 are above (shame on you samsung spinpoint with your nearly 2W draw) For 7200rpm drives, 3 are below the midpoint, 14 are above.
maddogb to CampGareth
2 Oct 17#31
i am not the one arguing you are, you initially argued against my statement of 5400rpm belonging in the 90s and you did so without the massive amount of evidence "you" require to substantiate your argument as to why that was not true. Like many people you forget "the big picture" any single component that slows down any necessary actions within the systems will cause the system to be powered up at full consumption for longer periods.
CampGareth to maddogb
2 Oct 17#32
Even considering the whole system, 'race to sleep' means waiting on a HDD to do something isn't as bad as it once was. Your 35W CPU isn't drawing 35W while waiting for DMA to happen somewhere else, it's asleep.
So your argument was originally... that 5400rpm drives have no place in modern society? And you're basing that on your opinion that 7200rpm drives are better in every conceivable way, or that when they're worse, other factors in the system make them better overall? What did you base that opinion from, data or more opinions? I'm having difficulty finding actual data that proves a 5400rpm is less efficient for an overall system, and without data I cannot share your opinion as I'd be pulling it out of thin air like an insane person. Please share your sources with me.
dheydl to maddogb
2 Oct 17#20
Not quite. Many current 5400 spinners are faster than their 7200rpm counterparts of a few years ago. With smaller, thinner laptops and devices heat and noise are also considerations. Caching makes a difference in daily performance and as already pointed out, this is a hybrid mechanical hd.
lollypoplee to dheydl
2 Oct 17#22
As already stated above, please can you show where you got your info regarding this hybrid drive cause im pretty sure your wrong mate
maddogb to dheydl
2 Oct 17#27
and many many things are faster than their yesteryear counterpart, apples and oranges, caching makes little difference in mobile application certainly not enough to counteract the slow access and transfer from the 5400 drives.
dfunked to maddogb
2 Oct 17#24
Erm... It's still very common. WD blue and red drives for example. 5x00 rpm drives still definitely have their place, especially seeing as the main use for spinning disks in today's world is storage, not boot/application drives.
maddogb to dfunked
2 Oct 17#28
yes but this isn't designed as a storage drive, only a tiny percentage of laptops have room for an extra drive so the argument is again not relevant.
fiqqer to maddogb
2 Oct 17#33
Not a good point and not well made. There are plenty of 5400 rpm hard drives - people buy them for a variety of reasons - they are quieter, cheaper and perhaps more reliable.
I now buy flash drives for laptops but they are smaller - 512mb so attach external storage. This is a good option to replace an older or faulty laptop drive.
OrribleHarry to maddogb
2 Oct 17#25
7200rpm drives consume more power so if it's for a laptop 5400rpm is sometimes preferable.
maddogb to OrribleHarry
2 Oct 17#29
wild generalisation and simply not true, many 7200rpm drives can outperform many 5400 rpm drives on lower power consumption, it's more down to clever design.
OrribleHarry to maddogb
2 Oct 17#34
Not any of the ones I have seen....dhow me proof.
maddogb to OrribleHarry
2 Oct 17#38
omg these arguments are literally foolish, we should maybe pour scorn on every car deal because a horse and cart uses less petrol :grin:
have a look at the old toms hardware list you will see 5400rpm drives near the top in power consumptions and some 7200 drives near the bottom, all for the sake of 0.6 watt :grin:
hamsterboy
2 Oct 17#15
Any of you learned folk know if you can get such a drive, stick a usb adaptor on it and use it in't tv with said tvs pvr function? (Assuming usb can provide enough power (1A if I remember correctly))
There was a 2gb external drive for just £50 on here yesterday though
PIOM to Pondlife
2 Oct 17#37
You have to remember, external hdds are not as verstile as these raw ones. You cannot take out the hdd from its external case as it is literally built in the structure. With this raw 2.5 hdds you can decide, where and how to use them. Also, depending on the caddy you pick, you can turn it to a usb 3.0 portable hdd. Most of the offers for external hdds here are for slower usb 2.0...
Pondlife to PIOM
2 Oct 17#41
As he was looking to make one of these into a usb it was sensible to put out usb ones for comparable and cheaper. Many of those can be stripped down and have drives exactly like this. Very few hard drives on here are usb 2 these days. If it suits you to imagine this is a great deal and you've an incredible bargain feel free though. :thumbsup:
PIOM to Pondlife
2 Oct 17#42
Where does it say it is a"great deal"? This is a good discount, but no one claims it is a great deal. And yes, makes more sense to buy usb hdd, take it apart, lose waranty, time...
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
All comments (43)
They don't make 2.5" just for someone to point out that you can get more for less with 3.5".
Here, Tom's hardware reviewing a desktop drive's power consumption, note that *generally* the 5400rpms are drawing less power than the 7200rpms. There's an oddly power hungry WD Green in there though which brings us to the point. If you want to argue that the generalisation is wrong, you're going to need to show a lot of data as evidence. If you want to argue that this particular drive model bucks the trend, that'll need just one good review... though I'm not sure that exists, google doesn't throw up many reviews for this model.
*edit* why not have more data, here's idle power consumption for 48 2.5" HDDs, 24th entry has 0.64W idle draw, 25th has 0.67W. I'm gonna call 0.65W the midpoint.
For 5400rpm drives, 21 are below the midpoint, 10 are above (shame on you samsung spinpoint with your nearly 2W draw)
For 7200rpm drives, 3 are below the midpoint, 14 are above.
you initially argued against my statement of 5400rpm belonging in the 90s and you did so without the massive amount of evidence "you" require to substantiate your argument as to why that was not true.
Like many people you forget "the big picture" any single component that slows down any necessary actions within the systems will cause the system to be powered up at full consumption for longer periods.
So your argument was originally... that 5400rpm drives have no place in modern society? And you're basing that on your opinion that 7200rpm drives are better in every conceivable way, or that when they're worse, other factors in the system make them better overall? What did you base that opinion from, data or more opinions? I'm having difficulty finding actual data that proves a 5400rpm is less efficient for an overall system, and without data I cannot share your opinion as I'd be pulling it out of thin air like an insane person. Please share your sources with me.
5x00 rpm drives still definitely have their place, especially seeing as the main use for spinning disks in today's world is storage, not boot/application drives.
I now buy flash drives for laptops but they are smaller - 512mb so attach external storage. This is a good option to replace an older or faulty laptop drive.
have a look at the old toms hardware list you will see 5400rpm drives near the top in power consumptions and some 7200 drives near the bottom, all for the sake of 0.6 watt :grin:
There was a 2gb external drive for just £50 on here yesterday though