HGST Travelstar 7K1000 2.5-Inch 1TB 7200 RPM SATA III 32MB Cache Internal Hard Drive 0J22423

HGST Travelstar 7K1000 2.5-Inch 1TB 7200 RPM SATA III 32MB Cache Internal Hard Drive 0J22423..

Special Price HGST Travelstar 7K1000 2.5-Inch 1TB 7200 RPM SATA III 32MB Cache Internal Hard Drive 0J22423 By HGST

Most helpful customer reviews

29 of 31 people found the following review helpful.
Works with PS4 upgrading is easy and fast - Less than 30 minutes.
By Chuck Bittner
If you're someone like me and wants to upgrade their PlayStation 4 from its 500GB hard drive to something more spacious this drive is a good choice. With PlayStation 4 games weighing in at near 30GB+ for a lot of games and hard drive the size will eventually be a must upgrade. And if you're interested in upgrading your PlayStation hard drive it's a pretty straightforward process.

At the time of this review this 7200rpm drive was $10 cheaper: This is 7200rpm 1TB drive: HGST Travelstar 2.5-Inch 1TB 7200RPM SATA 6GB/s 32MB Cache Internal Hard Drive

UPGRADING YOUR PS4 TAKE LESS THAN 30 minutes - You need to download the firmware from Sony*. If you need better instructions just google "PS4 hard drive replacement"
Step 1: remove the gloss section of your PS4. It's the part above the Blu-Ray slot.
Step 2: Remove the 500gb drive (requires 1 screw to be removed) Unscrew the 4 screws holding the drive in the cage.
Step 3: Put the PS4 back together.
Step 4: Insert your usb flash drive into the PS4 usb slot.
Step 5: Press and hold the power button on the PS4 for 8-10 seconds.
Step 6: Choose the bottom selection (I believe it's number 10) Reinstall firmware.
Step 7: That's it you are done only about 30 minutes and done.

*One thing you need if you're replacing a hard drive on the PlayStation is the latest firmware update from Sony's website and you need a 1 GB plus thumb drive formatted in fat32. And you just set up your thumb drive with a folder called PS4 an inside that folder another one called UPDATE. Then inside the update folder you place the firmware.

If you have a questions just ask them and I'll try to help.

I'd get this external case for your old 500gb drive: Vantec NexStar TX 2.5-Inch SATA to USB 2.0 External Hard Drive Enclosure ATM it' only $7.00. Takes only 3 minutes to install.

Here is another drive to consider for your PS4:
This is a 1.5TB hard drive: HGST Travelstar 5K1500 1.5TB 2.5-Inch Mobile 5400 RPM 9.5mm Internal Bare Hard Disk Drive 0J28001

Thanks reading please like if this was useful so others can see it.

PS personally I went with a 1TB 72000rpm drive in my PS4 as I wanted faster load times for my ADD personality.

19 of 20 people found the following review helpful.
HGST 7K1000 1TB 2.5 9MM Laptop Hard Drive.
By ToeKnee
In and out in less than 2 minutes. What a difference as second drive on HP DV7 I7!

Replaced 5400 WD Scopro Blue and HGST 7K1000 1TB is now the second drive to Intel SSD 180GB drive with 6 TB of Hitachi Touro USB 3.0 Externals.... 16GB RAM.

Using KeepAliveHD to stop all of the hard drives and partition from going to sleep all of the time. Nothing else worked as everytime an update came it would revert to sleepy sleep.

HGST are now the premiere drives with dual platters, 7200 rpms. MAKE SURE you are getting the 7K1000 as the other HGST 2.5 inch 1TB drive is single platter and no where near as fast and they are dumping them at $10 less.... still a good drive but nothing like the 7K1000.

29 of 35 people found the following review helpful.
Click Click Click
By Ben Holt
Attracted by the price, speed and capacity, I bought this hard drive (model # 0S03563) to replace the 500gb 5400rpm Seagate drive that came with my mid-2009 13" MacBook Pro. It fits perfectly, and installing a fresh copy of Mountain Lion was a breeze. My laptop boots up and launches applications faster than before. While the hard drive is seeking and working hard reading and writing, it's nearly silent. However, when the hard drive is idle, it emits a very annoying click once every 3-10 seconds that sounds like metal slapping against metal. The stock hard drive did not do this. This may not bother some people, but for me it's so irritating and frustrating that I have a hard time concentrating on what I'm doing. I have done some online research and found that many other owners of Travelstars experience this same problem. If I had known this before buying, I would have chosen a different brand.

Update January 17th 2014:

I found a small, free program called "hdpam" that made my hard drive stop clicking. I don't know who deserves more blame; Apple's Mac OS for asking the hard drive to park its heads every few seconds or Hitachi for building the hard drive in such a way that it makes a loud noise when it parks its heads.

See all 124 customer reviews...More...

Intel Core i7-4770 Quad-Core Desktop Processor 3.4 GHZ LGA 1150 8 MB Cache BX80646I74770

Intel Core i7-4770 Quad-Core Desktop Processor 3.4 GHZ LGA 1150 8 MB Cache BX80646I74770..

Buy Intel Core i7-4770 Quad-Core Desktop Processor 3.4 GHZ LGA 1150 8 MB Cache BX80646I74770 By Intel

Most helpful customer reviews

60 of 69 people found the following review helpful.
Even less improvement than expected
By CRT
Quick Review:

While the i7-4770 is a solid processor for desktop users seeking power and bang for the buck and not concerned about the highest clock speed, it is not worth the upgrade if you are on a Sandy Bridge or newer CPU. I upgraded from a much older platform and I would have waited for the 2014 Haswell-e/Haswell refresh chips if the capacitors in my old motherboard had hung in a little longer.

Pros:

+ Supports Intel's Transaction Synchronization Extensions (TSX): This is not supported by the initial K series Haswell offerings and represents a capability that, as an executive responsible for software development, I would leverage in any effort where I could not justify the investment in fine-grained thread synchronization. I expect that game, CAD and multimedia developers are going to be looking to leverage this. As of this writing, this is the fastest consumer chip that supports it.

+ Good performance relative to current offerings: Stock i7-4770 chips do well on benchmark and real world tests. As of this writing (July 10,2013), cpubenchmark.net reports an average CPU Mark of 10,126. That is higher than any stock chip under 580USD, even beating the 4770k at stock speeds.

Cons:

- Surprisingly high retail price at introduction for what it is, I paid 310USD with an Intel box price of 312USD - expect prices to drop as initial fervor dies down and the Haswell line matures.

- Potentially superseded quickly by the i7-4771 (same capabilities with higher speed, possibly driven by improvements in binning with process maturity).

- Surprisingly disappointing performance improvement over previous generations (particularly memory operations).

- Extremely limited overclocking.

Neutral:

o Requires an LGA1150 motherboard - you can't reuse your old one if you wanted to, but LGA1150 chipsets natively have greater peripheral support

BACKGROUND

If you are reading this than I expect you either typically build your own PCs, are considering your first build or are considering upgrading an existing LGA1150 PC (assuming you are reading this in 2014 or later). In each of these cases, you are not the typical user so I will not waste time on basics or information that is available elsewhere. I will give you my opinions and the reasoning behind them and hope they will help you making your own informed decision.

I have been building and tweaking PCs since the early 1990's, but I have only done a half dozen builds for personal or family use. For my primary desktop I tend to build 1 tier from the top (enthusiast, high bang for the buck) and keep it for a long time. It takes me about a day to build a machine and get the OS to boot, but it seems like it takes months before I have the applications fully configured. This build replaced a late 2003 Pentium 4 3.2GHz Northwood Socket 478 build. Yep - almost 10 years. And I actually use my machine - Catia, heat transfer simulations, photoshop CS, HDTV video capture and editing, large MS project plans, various SW development environments and the standard Office applications. I do occasionally game, but not a lot of FPSs. The Socket 478 machine performed as needed until late 2012 when the lack of 64bit and being limited to 2 concurrent threads became an issue (I have access to other hardware, so it was never a road block).

While the new i7-4770 based machine is faster, I am surprised by how little improved it is in real world applications. The most conservative general application of Moore's law says that the new machine should be able to process about 30 times as much information (double every 2 years over 10 years). Having lived with the new machine for few weeks now I am convinced that it is not that much faster. I have used PassMark's Performance Test to benchmark and maintain my personal machines since 2001 so I can provide some objective comparisons in addition to a thumb in the wind estimate...

Using Performance Test v5 with the 4770 machine running 8 threads vs. 2 threads on my old 3.2GHz P4

CPU Mark: 7146.7(i7-4770) vs 665.0(P4) - about 10.75 times the CPU Mark of the old machine

With the 4770 machine running only 2 threads its rating drops to 3343.3 (~5x)

With regards to the built in 4600 graphics - the P4 at the time of testing was sporting a Radeon HD 3800 AGP 8X...

3D Graphics Mark: 2415.0 vs 2358.8 (almost no change)
2D Graphics Mark: 260.8 vs 114.3 (2.25x)

This is a bit of an unfair comparison as a midrange modern dedicated graphics card would likely improve the new machine's performance by an order of magnitude, but it does put Intel's onboard GPU in perspective.

And the real disappointment - memory...

Memory Mark: 992.7 vs 564.9 (~1.75x)

The new machine has much more memory and PerformanceTest 5.0 is 32bit so the new machine has considerable addressing overhead handicapping it, but this really shows how little difference there is between ancient low latency DDR-440 and comparatively high latency modern DDR3-1866.

There is one category where we see the type of improvement we would hope for after 10 years - storage performance. Disk access has always been a bottle neck for me so the P4 was loaded with two Raptors in a RAID0 configuration for the primary boot and application drive. The 4770 machine has a single SSD. The result:

Disk Mark: 19406.6 vs 418.2 (~46x)

The overall PassMark rating of the new system in PerformanceTest v5 (running 8 threads) is 6322.9 versus 677.3 or slightly over 9 times the performance of the old P4 machine.

These numbers back up the way the new machine feels - much faster, but not shockingly so. In fact, shockingly disappointing would be more accurate.

Did I get a bad 4770? Bad motherboard? Bad memory? Should I give up my job as an engineering executive and go back to playing with Legos because I can't even build a PC? To answer that, let's see how the new machine compares against modern machines. Using the current version of Performance Test (v8.0) yields the following results...

PassMark Rating: 3,227
CPU Mark: 11,114
2D Graphics: 1,120
3D Graphics: 559
Memory Mark: 2,961
Disk Mark: 4,266

These numbers are solid. In fact, with the exception of the 3D Graphics, this machine outperforms the other 71 i7-4770 based systems on cpubenchmark.net as of this writing. And the i7-4770 is arguably the fastest stock chip you can get for under 580USD. This makes the lack of progress over the past 10 years even more clear.

My take is:

Unless you have to have a new desktop now, you really should sit this round out altogether - Intel did. The lack of TSX support on the K-series takes them out of play. I am doubtful of the real world improvements of the Ivy Bridge-e as well. If you have a Sandy Bridge, or a Sandy Bridge-e - in my opinion you built at the right time. We have two 2600K based machines and they will serve in their roles well for many years. My plan for my personal desktop is to take a good look at the Haswell-e chips after the prices stabilize (along with DDR4) - maybe sometime in 2015. If I like what I see, the i7-4770 will be transitioned to our HTPC and I will build a new desktop then. That will give me 2 years with this hardware on my desk - about 1/5 of what I got out of my last desktop build.

40 of 45 people found the following review helpful.
Solid Processor, Modest jump from Gen 3, Not for overclocking
By Amadeus B. Klein
This is Intel's 4th Generation i7, the 4770 is a direct replacement of the 3770. This CPU is not meant for overclocking (does not have an unlocked multiplier), you want the Intel Core i7-4770K Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80646I74770K for that.

That said you will need a new motherboard to upgrade from any of the earlier generation CPUs as this generation uses the 1150 socket while the other 3 used different ones. One nice thing here is aftermarket CPU coolers that fit 1155/1156 sockets will work on this CPU.

This CPU is a Quad Core, 8 thread running at 3.4GHz with boost to 3.9GHz as needed.
It is an 84 Watt CPU. The only currently available faster Intel 4th Gen CPU is the 4770K running at 3.5Ghz (and able to be overclocked thanks to the unlocked multiplier).

It comes with HD 4600 integrated graphics which is an upgrade over the HD 4000 in the 3rd Generation 3770.

Depending on what site you read for technical reviews this processor will give an improvement of 1%-20% over a 3rd generation CPU. Personally it seems about a 5%-10% increase in performance in most bench tests I have seen...

When looking at this consider some of the following things:
1) This will require a new motherboard ($100+)so budget that in
2) This does not have an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is out.
3) With a $300+ price tag and a minimum $100 for a motherboard you will be spending at least $400+ to upgrade so even assuming the best performance increase that's $20 per % of increased performance.

If the price fits what you are looking for and you have no desire to overclock then this might be a solid choice of CPU...

I personally decided on the i7-4770K because if I ever choose to I can overclock it. I upgraded from a 3770K (not overclocked) and didn't really see any real world performance increase (Not overclocked).

I am using it in my media center PC which serves 6-8 TVs, streams music and maintains my media collection. so I am not pushing it with extreme gaming, but I do have it running without a hitch while streaming 1080p 3D movies to 6 TVs at the same time...

If you absolutely must have a 4th Gen i7 Processor and price is a major concern then this might be a good fit, but if top performance is more what you're looking for go with the 4770K... The performance bump over the 1st/2nd gen CPUs does seem worth the price.

If you are happy with your 3rd Gen i7 I would skip the upgrade since it's not that large of a performance boost overall...

Components in my personal Build:
Silverstone Tek GD-08 Case
ASUS Z87-PRO Intel Z87 4DIMM ATX
Corsair Enthusiast Series TX850 V2 850W 80+ Bronze
SAMSUNG 840 250GB 2.5 SATA III
Intel Core i7-4770K 3.50 GHz LGA1150
Kingston XMP 16GB 1866MHz DDR3 CL9 (Kit of 4) XMP
Blu-ray Optical Drive
5 Western Digital Red 3 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III (12TB Usable with Raid Config)
ARCTIC Freezer 7 Pro Rev. 2, CPU Cooler
EVGA GeForce GTX 650 1024MB GDDR5 DVI mHDMI Graphics Card

Just my Thoughts,

MG

28 of 32 people found the following review helpful.
A better deal than the i7-4770K
By coder
This processor is fully featured, unlike the i7-4770K which lacks support for TSX and costs more. The TSX instruction set extension will make multi-threaded applications faster, so despite the i7-4770K's extra overclocking abilities (which are not guaranteed), it may not be the faster processor in all cases.

So just get this i7-4770 instead and get what you pay for. You can also save money on a cheaper motherboard. This processor offers a lot of bang for the buck and still has untapped potential thanks to the AVX2 and TSX features which will be used by future software and thus extend its longevity.

I've observed a fairly consistent 20% higher performance in multi-threaded applications over an i7-2600 so far. AVX2's doubled vector processing power should increase that gap even more once multimedia applications and games make use of it.

See all 61 customer reviews...More...

Seagate Barracuda 500 GB HDD SATA 6 Gb/s NCQ 16MB Cache 3.5-Inch Internal Bare Drive ST500DM002

Seagate Barracuda 500 GB HDD SATA 6 Gb/s NCQ 16MB Cache 3.5-Inch Internal Bare Drive ST500DM002..

GET Seagate Barracuda 500 GB HDD SATA 6 Gb/s NCQ 16MB Cache 3.5-Inch Internal Bare Drive ST500DM002 By Seagate

Most helpful customer reviews

1970 of 2186 people found the following review helpful.
POWER OF ONE or WEAKNESS OF 0.67 - how to avoid getting the bad drive version...
By niels
UPDATE January 2014:

Thanks to information from many useful comments, a short update:

1) The problem is still the same as it was. Both 2TB drives are still being sold with the same model number. Due to changes in serial nunbers, depth of the drive housing's indentation has now become the best way to distinquish the drives (see user images - bottom right of Amazon's product page)

2) When I wrote this, I didn't feel up to offering an alternate drive recommendation, as my own opinion is based on personal experience and hence anecdotal. Many people asked, but I only answered in email, without adding a recommendation to the review.

Since Backblaze's (an online data backup company) massive long term test, their blog and extremetech's article based on that (see comments, page 26 for a link), I'll just quote their blog: "If the price were right, we would be buying nothing but Hitachi drives. They have been rock solid, and have had a remarkably low failure rate."

So, is that data even relevant for the average home user? I would say yes, because continuous, heavy use of large numbers of drives is the only way to get any half-reliable comparison. Among consumers, usage patterns are simply spread too wide: if someone only turns on their computer 15 times a year (my aunt), any drive will be the same as any other drive, cause with so little use, they will all last till the lubricant in the spindle dries up, and she'll tell anyone who asks that her drive is great. This inability to compare reliability in the consumer space has bolstered sales of shoddy drives for a long time.

If you do use your computer frequently, installing drives exhibiting a <1% annual failure rate at Backblaze certainly beats installing drives with a 15% or even 120% annual failure rate.

**end update**

ok, so this drive is listed as the "Seagate ST2000DM001" and guess what; other than that it sports 2 Terabytes, it tells you nothing whatever about what drive you'll end up with, because Seagate has chosen to obscure and omit relevant Data between different builds with vastly different performance.

The short advice: Only purchase versions xxExxxxx [and possibly x24xxxxx - x24 is unverified info so far, see notes below] of the 2TB model. This uses 2 platters and 4 heads.
It performs 30% better than the version with 3 platters, which has an xxFxxxxx [or possibly x36xxxxx] designation. Avoid those!

You'll need to contact the seller and ask them to check the code on the drive. If they can't verify, don't buy it, better to get a drive from a different company, where its hopefully not a surprise game of what's in the box.

S - SU - Suzhou China
W - WU - Wuxi China
Z - TK - Korat Thailand

F = 3 platters with either 5 or 6 heads (bad 2TB drive or good 3TB drive)
E = 2 platters with 4 heads. (good 2TB drive)
D = 1 platter with 2 heads. (good 1TB drive)

Weight info received in a comment here, suggests that the 'good' 2-platter drive weighs 534 grams, while the 'bad' 3-platter drive weighs 624 grams.

Seagate used to embed the information about their drives in the model number, but now they obscured it, so they can pawn off whatever they want. Send a WxE model to Publications who test drives, and then ship the crappy WxF model to unsuspecting customers who may never realize they're not getting what they thought they were buying. This should really be illegal.

.
.
.
.
NOTE 1: This was written for the 2TB drive. It turns out Amazon also shows this review for 3TB drives. This info does not apply to 3TB drives, the 3TB drives always have 3 1TB platters. (or not, there have been reports of 5 platter 3TB versions, if you know anything more, let us know)

.
NOTE 2: comparison test results - since links get killed in reviews, I'll upload an image to the product page.

.
NOTE 3: A relevant post on Seagate's forum stating that these Barracuda have been crippled through redesign [see the link in comment 143 below, page 15]
(Apparently, links are permitted in comments)

.
NOTE 4: Someone commented that Seagate removed any reference to the 2 platter version of this drive in the manual (something which is usually only read after the purchase)

.
NOTE 5: Someone explained that Seagate made this change due to the flooding of their plant in Thailand. This is not quite correct since chinese 2 platter 2TB drives are also in circulation.

.
NOTE 6: While the channel still has drives with the numbering scheme as described above, there appear to be at least some drives with a new numbering scheme like "Z240PJB3". Would be great if it read out like x24xxxxx, where 2 stands for 2 platters and 4 stands for 4 heads, then this would be one of the good drives while something like x35xxxxx would be the bad drives. (this is just a guess so far, its not verified)

.
NOTE 7: Someone added that 2 platter drives (based on other pictures) are 'thinner' with deeper indents on the bottom and top and have a dot matrix code on the bottom right third of the top next to the label. (note that labels are not safe indicators, as they could change an older factory to add barcodes or switch to their latest labeling system any time they wish)

.
NOTE 8: Seagate has reacted and added more drive info on this product page, advertising "POWER OF ONE" meaning 1 platter per terabyte. This is good news, but that doesn't mean you can relax and just hit the 'buy' button:
a) channel inventory of drives manufactured prior to this "Power of One" initiative will be around for some time to come, so you still need to verify.
b) the specifications sheet Seagate still links on this very page (as of June 28, 2013) shows 6 heads, 3 disks for the 2TB version. With conflicting information, its still a little hard to tell for consumers if they're getting "POWER OF ONE" or "WEAKNESS OF 0.67"

.
Once Seagate "fixes" their spec sheet info for the 2TB drive which directly conflicts with the "Power of One" advertising, I'd be happy to change my conclusion below. After all, it would mean they decided to be honest and transparent again, rather than hell bent on destroying the reputation of their 'Barracuda' brand.

But right now, what is the point of advertising "Power of One" while saying their 2TB drives have 3 platters with 0.67 TB at the same time.

.
.
.
CONCLUSION:
Seagate's real reason to obscure drive information is being able to use lower bin or older tech platters that can only hold ~670 GB, so they use 3 platters. This is a fine business decision, but an honest company would give it a new Model number/name, as its a different product with lower speeds, lower reliability and higher weight.

But why be honest, if you can cheat and make a few dollars extra per drive, by selling it under the same name as the better drive, which has been reviewed extensively and lauded for its higher speeds?

Last Update: June 28, 2013 (in response to Seagate's new additions to this page and with thanks to Alex and J. Goodman)

460 of 514 people found the following review helpful.
3TB for Synology NAS
By Steve Eagle
This is one of the select few 3TB drives approved by Synology for use in a variety of their NAS devices, so I put 4 of these in a DS411 in SHR with one disk redundancy (basically RAID 5). While anyone will tell you enterprise hard drives are better in RAID 5 or 6 configurations - and they are right, for the most part - it's hard to deny the big price difference in going enterprise: 3TB enterprise drives are well over $550 right now due to the recent Thailand flood and it may be some time before that price drops significantly. While these drives weren't as cheap as the 3TB WD Caviar Green varieties, I will NEVER put Caviar Greens in a RAID 5 again, so the ST3000DM001 quickly rose to the top of my admittedly short list.

I think it's important to point out that IntelliPower (WD) and CoolSpin (Hitachi) technologies are not really ideal for any kind of RAID array using parity. WD Caviar Green drives, especially, are known to sometimes not power up when needed, ultimately resulting in them getting dropped from the RAID array. A good NAS like the DS411 will put the drives into hibernation after 10 minutes of no activity, so you don't really need the benefit of "eco-friendly" drives in this kind of RAID anyways. Plus, with 7200RPM you will get speed improvements, so it's a no brainer to pick a drive like this over those.

That said, of course these do not have TLER, RAFF and other advantages of enterprise-class drives. So you run the risk of more errors, RAID rebuilds and potential failures by choosing a consumer drive like this. But even though the risk is greater, it's not really worth the extra money to go to 3TB enterprise-class, so I feel this is a good compromise of risk vs. value.

UPDATE - 7/12/13

I felt I should come back and update this review (and my rating) due to 2 of these drives encountering bad sectors and getting dropped from my RAID volume within a 1 month period of time. It took over a year and a half for this to happen but it's still an unacceptable loss ratio in my opinion. I still did not encounter that dreaded second disk failure while rebuilding my RAID5 with a new drive - both times the rebuilds completed without a hitch. Once again, that situation has not happened in my 15 years of professional IT work. I ended up going with the WD Red 3 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache - WD30EFRX to replace the Seagates. Although Synology and other NAS manufacturers ignore the TLER timings in enterprise drives and implement their own, I feel the Reds (and by extension the RE's) are better suited for NAS usage and will be more versatile should I choose to put them in different RAIDs or NAS's in the future.

So in summary, I can't really recommend these Seagates anymore after my personal experience and the drop in price in the WD Reds.

290 of 335 people found the following review helpful.
So far, so good.
By Skullywag
I've dealt almost exclusively with WD for the last 10 years....I had a string of bad luck with Seagate before that, and had sworn off of them. Well, times have changed, and I'm willing to see if Seagate has improved over the years. Post-flood WD seems to be sticking to the absurd prices after other makers are slowly going back down to reasonable prices. And I have to say price played a BIG part in these recent purchases...I REFUSE to pay more for a WD GREEN drive than I did for a Black drive twice the size a year ago...I just refuse.
In a non-raid environment, this 2TB drive seems to be snappy, worked out of the box, and has had no errors...so far so good. Just ordered 2 of the 3TB variety on the strength of this one.

I've been seeing A LOT of neg reviews lately for ALL manufactures in ALL price ranges, it's my belief that the many DOAs have more to do with how the drives are handled in transit, than quality control. I've SEEN the way carriers toss the packages around to get to others, and have even seen them STAND on packages....no bubble wrap is going to compensate for that kind of abuse. Still other complaints I've seen have more to do with ignorance than anything...who in their right mind expects to drop a 2TB-3TB drive in a 10 year old machine and expect it to work out of the box, without using the manufactureres tool? Or expects lightning speeds when a SATA 6GB drive is plugged into a SATA 1.5GB port? And if I read one more review where a clueless person can't understand why a 3 TB reports as less than 3TB in Windows...I'll scream!

I think it stinks that warrantys have been cut, and there is still the question in my mind if post-flood drives are being rushed out to meet demand before factorys are up-to-snuff, or if all that fresh new equipment means a better product....guess we'll see.
From a one week perspective, I have no complaints with this drive. In the weeks to come, if I DO....I'll let ya know.

See all 2545 customer reviews...More...

Seagate Desktop 1 TB Solid State Hybrid Drive SATA 6 GB with NCQ 64 MB Cache 3.5 Inch (ST1000DX001)

Seagate Desktop 1 TB Solid State Hybrid Drive SATA 6 GB with NCQ 64 MB Cache 3.5 Inch (ST1000DX001)..

Buy Seagate Desktop 1 TB Solid State Hybrid Drive SATA 6 GB with NCQ 64 MB Cache 3.5 Inch (ST1000DX001) By Seagate

Most helpful customer reviews

96 of 105 people found the following review helpful.
Good compromise between speed and price.
By RJMacReady
Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2Z1X7ISIZY61A I've been using an SSD as a boot drive on my Windows desktop so I can speak from experience when I say that this drive doesn't really come close to it when it comes to speed. Both are much faster than a standard drive, so the difference is only a matter of seconds, though. And the solid state drive cost nearly as much as this drive but has a fraction of the storage, only enough to hold my operating system and a few of my most frequently used programs. Everything else has to run off a second drive. This drive doesn't cost all that much more than a standard drive for the same storage, and still offers a nice boost in speed.

It works differently than a boot drive, as the computer does not recognize the solid state memory as a second drive, so you don't select which programs or files run off the drive. It only has 8GBs of solid state memory, so it couldn't even hold the operating system. Instead, the drive decides which files to store on the SSD, based on which of them are used most frequently. For that reason, the performance of the drive improves over time, as the drive learns and optimizes how it uses the limited solid state memory.

So far, I'm pleased with the drive. I really haven't noticed any differences between this one and disk based drives I've used, other than an increase in speed. It doesn't complicate things at all - the computer sees it as just another single drive. Having 2TB is nice, as I don't have to worry about space, even with a large collection of HD movies and games stored. Installing it wasn't any more difficult than other drives I've used either. If speed is your top priority, than there is no substitute for an SSD right now, but this is a nice compromise between speed and storage size at a decent price, if you're not worried about your computer taking a few more seconds to boot up.

I've included a short video so you can actually see my PC doing a complete restart. It's pretty fast, but the SSD was even faster.

45 of 51 people found the following review helpful.
What your iMac needs
By R dattan
Have a mid 2011 iMac with a 3Gbps SATA -500 GB that was running out of space. Plus was getting colored wheels more often inspite of 12GB RAM. SSD at 1TB was half the price of the iMAC which made no sense and the smaller capacity SSD's were ruled out- so this is where the Seagate SSHD 1TB comes in with the right value. The drive is pretty fast and I'm into this for a week only, hence the 4 stars. Amazon's shipping was fast, though the box was not the original Seagate one. Seems like some packaging cost was reduced. Performance wise, the machine feels like a new iMAC straight out of an Apple Store!. Getting this into an iMAC is harder than changing out an MBP HDD and also much harder than a desktop PC. But all said, it is quite doable. Here are the steps- I won't go into too much detail to keep things simple, just follow the links. There may be some differences depending on your iMAC model from 2011, but expect the basic steps to be more or less the same.
Step 1)
Move new SSHD into a USB enclosure. Use clonezilla ([...] to do a disk to disk back up.

Step 2)
As a clone, the new SSHD disk is partitioned exactly like the old disk- which means 500GB is left out- Use Disk Utility to expand the SSHD into 1TB.

Step 3)
Follow this Youtube link to see how to add a new disk to the iMac. You will need the suction for the glass( I used 2 old car GPS holder suction cups to do the job) and Torx T8 drivers ( Home Depot or Lowes). You need to stop at the part where the display and cables come off fully- everything that follows is not required if you are simply swapping out your current disk with a new SSHD
[...]

Step 4)
In the top- middle section you will find the HDD attached with 2 screws. Take off those screws and the 2 cables that connect the HDD. At the bottom, you will find 2 screws sticking out -these are used to hold the HDD to the frame- Use the Torx driver to take them off. Put them back on into the new SSHD. Plug the cables into the new SSHD and put the 2 screws back on

Step 5)
Reverse all the steps, starting with each of the cable connectors as showed in the video. Once everything is back on, power up the iMAC

Step 6)
Depending on your model, you may run into an issue, where the thermal sensor for the HDD may not be detected- this results in the fan running off course and eventually going for full speed ( normal is 1100 rpm- full - 6000 rpm+). This is loud enough and if left running may meltdown the HDD fan. This problem could be fixed with Apple's SMC reset procedure ([...] Use SMC fan control freeware to check fan speeds ([...]

Step 7)
After following Apple's process, if you still observe high fan speeds buy the HDD Fan control app to fix the problem ( there is a 1 hr fully functioning demo, so that you can see it working ([...] At $35 it is a bit pricey but worth it- set it to startup at login, and set it to start in every user's login and you are good to go.

That's it. Seagate drives are generally good and I think this guy will last. I have a momentus 750G SSHD running on the MBP for the last 1 year with no issues. Anyways no more colored wheels spinning and that makes a huge difference

Nov 13th- Update
-------------------------------------------
- Well over a month now- Drive runs well and is quiet -raising my 4 to 5 stars

33 of 40 people found the following review helpful.
Decent upgrade from 3 year old Barracuda 7200.11
By Timothy D. Williams
I purchased this drive after having great experience with the Momentus XT 500GB (first-gen) notebook SSHD over the last two years. The drive made a great improvement in boot, hibernation and application performance in my Lenovo Thinkpad X120e when an SSD at 500GB capacity would have cost nearly 10x as much as the 500GB SSHD in 2011. I decided to "preorder" this drive over a month ago and it arrived exactly when Amazon promised (late September.)

Upon opening the drive, it looks like a normal hard drive. I mounted it below my original drive that would eventually be pulled, and temporarily plugged it in to the SATA and power cable that my DVD-ROM drive was connected too. I decided to load Seagate's free data migration software (Acronis) which is used by many other OEM's such as Intel for their SSD's. Acronis software has always worked great for me in the past as isn't based on Linux (it appears to be Windows PE) like many "cheaper" migration tools that are often unable to copy Windows GPT partitions or hidden recovery partitions. Acronis data migration in my experience also supports most USB 3.0 and eSATA controllers if you are using an external means to migrate data (such as in a laptop.) I tested it's compatibility with my Texas Instruments USB 3.0 controller and my Marvell eSATA controller and both detected properly, enabling faster copying than over USB 2.0 in a laptop. In short, Seagate's migration software is excellent.

The migration of 1TB data took about 2.5 hours using internal SATA 3Gbps. After it was finished, I disconnected the old drive, connected the SSHD, and plugged my my optical drive back in.

Windows booted and everything looked fine. Performance wasn't much faster at first, but over the course of a few days there have been noticeable improvements booting Windows, loading iTunes and Chrome, and especially switching user accounts. The performance isn't dramatic, but it's there. Windows 7 performance index went from 5.9 to 7.4. This is an Intel x58 motherboard with a 3Gbps (SATA 2.0, 300MB/sec) controller. Newer systems may have a higher rating, but from what I've read, the single 8GB NAND chip on the Seagate SSHD's is only 2-channel so it's limited to around 190MB/sec. The goal is to offer improved random access performance like an SSD, which it does.

Regarding the "product review" I've been running the drive exactly one week pretty heavily with no issues, so at least my model doesn't appear to be defective. Packaging for shipment was excellent; it arrived in a real hard drive carrier with plastic cradles at each end. SMART diagnostics tools has found no problems. Drive had 2 spin ups and 1 hours of use (all presumably factory final testing.)

Hope this review helps with your decision. It's unfortunate they don't make a 3TB and 4TB model.

See all 229 customer reviews...More...

WD Red 1 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache - WD10EFRX

WD Red 1 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache - WD10EFRX..

Special Price WD Red 1 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache - WD10EFRX By Western Digital

Most helpful customer reviews

1001 of 1090 people found the following review helpful.
Regular consumer drives in RAID are accident waiting to happen
By Gary E. Peterson
Here is a quote from a review at pcper.com

I'm going to let the cat out of the bag right here and now. Everyone's home RAID is likely an accident waiting to happen. If you're using regular consumer drives in a large array, there are some very simple (and likely) scenarios that can cause it to completely fail. I'm guilty of operating under this same false hope - I have an 8-drive array of 3TB WD Caviar Greens in a RAID-5. For those uninitiated, RAID-5 is where one drive worth of capacity is volunteered for use as parity data, which is distributed amongst all drives in the array. This trick allows for no data loss in the case where a single drive fails. The RAID controller can simply figure out the missing data by running the extra parity through the same formula that created it. This is called redundancy, but I propose that it's not.

Since I'm also guilty here with my huge array of Caviar Greens, let me also say that every few weeks I have a batch job that reads *all* data from that array. Why on earth would I need to occasionally and repeatedly read 21TB of data from something that should already be super reliable? Here's the failure scenario for what might happen to me if I didn't:
* Array starts off operating as normal, but drive 3 has a bad sector that cropped up a few months back. This has gone unnoticed because the bad sector was part of a rarely accessed file.
* During operation, drive 1 encounters a new bad sector.
* Since drive 1 is a consumer drive it goes into a retry loop, repeatedly attempting to read and correct the bad sector.
* The RAID controller exceeds its timeout threshold waiting on drive 1 and marks it offline.
* Array is now in degraded status with drive 1 marked as failed.
* User replaces drive 1. RAID controller initiates rebuild using parity data from the other drives.
* During rebuild, RAID controller encounters the bad sector on drive 3.
* Since drive 3 is a consumer drive it goes into a retry loop, repeatedly attempting to read and correct the bad sector.
* The RAID controller exceeds its timeout threshold waiting on drive 3 and marks it offline.
* Rebuild fails.

At this point the way forward varies from controller to controller, but the long and short of it is that the data is at extreme risk of loss. There are ways to get it all back (most likely without that one bad sector on drive 3), but none of them are particularly easy. Now you may be asking yourself how enterprises run huge RAIDs and don't see this sort of problem? The answer is Time Limited Error Recovery - where the hard drive assumes it is part of an array, assumes there is redundancy, and is not afraid to quickly tell the host controller that it just can't complete the current I/O request.

Here's how that scenario would have played out if the drives implemented some form of TLER:
* Array starts off operating as normal, but drive 3 has developed a bad sector several weeks ago. This went unnoticed because the bad sector was part of a rarely accessed file.
* During operation, drive 1 encounters a new bad sector.
* Drive 1 makes a few read attempts and then reports a CRC error to the RAID controller.
* The RAID controller maps out the bad sector, locating it elsewhere on the drive. The missing sector is rebuilt using parity data from the other drives in the array.
*Array continues normal operation, with the error added to its event log.

The above scenario is what would play out with an Areca RAID controller (I've verified this personally). Other controllers may behave differently. A controller unable to do a bad sector remap might have just marked drive 1 as bad, but the key is that the rebuild would be much less likely to fail as drive 3 would not drop completely offline once the controller ran into the additional bad sector. The moral of this story is that typical consumer grade drives have data error timeouts that are far longer than the drive offline timeout of typical RAID controllers, and without some form of TLER, two bad sectors (totaling 1024 bytes) is all that's required to put multiple terabytes of data in grave danger.

The Solution:
The solution should be simple - just get some drives with TLER. The problem is that until now those were prohibitively expensive. Enterprise drives have all sorts of added features like accelerometers and pressure sensors to compensate for sliding in and out of a server rack while operating, as well as dealing with rapid pressure changes that take place when the server room door opens and the forced air circulation takes a quick detour. Those features just aren't needed in that home NAS sitting on your bookshelf. What *is* needed is a WD Caviar Green that has TLER, and Western Digital delivers that in their new Red drives.

End quote and back to reviewer.
I've got 5 of these in a Synology DiskStation 5-Bay (Diskless) Network Attached Storage (DS1512+). It is really a sweet setup.

The Synology software has a S.M.A.R.T. test that can do surface scans to detect bad sectors. I have their Quick Test check every disk daily and the Extended Test set to automatically run on each of the 5 disks every weekend. (The Extended Test takes about 5 hours per disk so I separate the tests by 12 hours.)

96 of 104 people found the following review helpful.
Nice hard drives for NAS or storage server with RAID.
By T. Mccleary
If you're looking at this review, you're probably in the market for some honkin' big drives to stuff into a server or a NAS box. These Western Digital "Red" series drives are probably a total waste of money if you're planning to put them into a regular PC. If you're not doing a raid array of some kind, then save your money and buy the green or black series drives instead. If you're looking to set up a raid array of some sort, these are a bargain. They aren't the fastest drives, but they are rated to run 24x7 serving up data! Their 3 year warranty is above the current industry standard for consumer hard drives.

For my home-made FreeNAS (google it!) NAS/Server, I bought 5 WD Red drives from Adorama (purchased through Amazon) and 1 drive directly from Amazon.

The one drive from Amazon came very well packaged, double boxed in what looks like a WD cardboard box with a shock absorbing cradle. Very well packaged for shipment. Honestly, Amazon has been stellar for packaging boxes for shipment.

The 5 hard drives from Adorama came in a big box which 'clunked' when it was tilted. Opening the box revealed some big plastic pillow air strips, and 5 loose smaller boxes. Inside each of the smaller boxes was a few pillows and a factory bagged hard drive. There were not enough pillows in each box to securely cushion the hard drives against rattling around, so there's a high likelihood of damage in shipment. BAD SHIPPERS! NO DONUT!

Anyway, getting on to the performance of the drives... I'm running 6 drives in a ZFS RaidZ2 array. They are all controlled using an IBM M1015 PCIE 8x SATA 3 controller which has been flashed to be an HBA providing JBOD to the ZFS OS. That's a lotta acronyms! The speed of the array is quite fast... more than fast enough to saturate a gigabit network. I currently have about 5TB of data stored on the 10TB array.

On to the bad stuff...
One of the drives (I haven't checked the serial number to see which shipper it came from) is starting to give signs of premature failure after about 70 hours of operation. During a scrub of the data pool, drive DA5 is experiencing unreadable sectors. Luckily ZFS is able to calculate the correct values for the corrupted data, and is busily recreating the data onto another part of the drive. ZFS rocks for data reliability! If the drive does turn out to be bad, I have a WD Green 3TB drive that I can put into the array as a hot swap temporarily until the failed drive can be replaced. *UPDATE* The ZFS scrub just finished, and it repaired 1.53MB of data, with no data loss. Did I mention that ZFS rocks?

Warning/Advice about Data Storage:
Note 1: If you're going to be using these drives, or any data storage device for that matter, make sure that you take into account that these are highly fragile and delicate devices which can be easily damaged in shipment, or just plain up and fail when you least expect it. You really need to use some sort of redundant array of drives so that if one drive fails, your data doesn't vanish. In my case, the final configuration is going to be 6 drives in a RaidZ2 (dual parity striping), which means that my data stays intact and accessible even if 2 drives fail simultaneously. Also, there is going to be a 3TB Green drive as a hot spare that can take over for any failed drive in the array. With the hot-spare, my data can survive the loss of 3 drives without losing data (as long as the failures don't happen all at the same time).
Note 2: Always, always, always have a backup. In my case, I have two external 3TB USB3.0 drives which will be used only for backup purposes. Every so often, I'll backup the critical data onto the drives and stash them in my locker at work. If you don't have TrueCrypt, google it and see why your backup removable drives should be using it. If someone steals the drives, they only get the drives and not my data.

I'm giving 5 stars for the drives that work... 1 star for the failing drive... averages to about 4 stars score! I'll update this review once I have details on how the drives do in a week or so. Currently it ain't looking too good for drive DA5!

139 of 160 people found the following review helpful.
NAS Best Friend
By Simon
After about six months of searching for the perfect drive, I finally settled on two of these Western Digital Red 2TB WD20EFRX hard drives. I was ready to purchase HGST enterprise drives, the former Hitachi, but WD came out with these drives just in-time. I wanted to get the 3TB WD30EFRX version for my Synology DS212 NAS, but the price difference didn't make that much of a sense, and 2TB drives are more than enough for a few years of my home office use. I am very happy that these drives MTBFs are rated at 1,000,000 hours, they use less power, and they are cheaper than other enterprise drives.

Upon receiving, I immediately installed them in my NAS. It took about 15 minutes to install DSM 4 and begin the inspection process. I neither chose Raid 1, JBOD, or SHR, and I took some online advice and created two separate volumes, one on each disk, to have two independent file systems. In this case, you don't have to worry about rebuilding disk arrays if any drives fail, and you always have a backup present. I was planning on using Folder Sync feature to sync all folders from Disk 1 to Disk 2 every other hour, but I found out this feature only works on two independent Synology Disk Stations; however, you can use automated backup feature to backup data from Disk 1 into Disk 2, and it produces about the same result as Folder Sync does, and it gives you a few more options for backing up system and application files as well.

Synology volume creation took about 7 hours for each drive with automatic bad sector reallocation feature. I later tested each drive with S.M.A.R.T extended test--each took about 4 hours--and I am happy to report that I did not have any bad sectors on either of the drives. That is, the "Reallocated Sector Count" reads zero in S.M.A.R.T report.

The drives are surprisingly quiet. I had an enterprise RE2 500GB in my NAS, and it was thunderstorm loud compared to these. The temperature is also very reasonable. When the drive is resting it is about 31C/88F, and under heavy usage it rises up to 35C/95F. Although these drives speed are only 5000 rpm, I don't see any difference in file transfer speed. The only downside that I could sense was the startup time from sleep. I feel that compared to my old WD RE2 drive, it takes a good 2 to 5 seconds more for the NAS to come out of sleep each time. Not a deal breaker, but something to consider when you invest in these drives.

I think WD has done a good job with these drives, and they are currently the best on the market for home or home office use. That being said, I still think WD RE4 drives are the best enterprise drives and ultimate in performance; however, if you are looking for a good set of drives for your NAS, and the power consumption and noise are important to you, these WD Red drives will work just fine. Compared to desktop drives, these come with a few enterprise features that come in handy and will save you some time and money down the road.

See all 1055 customer reviews...More...

HGST Deskstar NAS 3.5-Inch 4TB 7200RPM SATA III 64MB Cache Internal Hard Drive Kit (0S03664)

HGST Deskstar NAS 3.5-Inch 4TB 7200RPM SATA III 64MB Cache Internal Hard Drive Kit (0S03664)..

GET HGST Deskstar NAS 3.5-Inch 4TB 7200RPM SATA III 64MB Cache Internal Hard Drive Kit (0S03664) By HGST

Most helpful customer reviews

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful.
Works well enough
By Kyle Cronin
I bought four of these drives and put them into a Promise Pegasus2 R4 with RAID 5. With this setup I benchmark about 470 MB/s write and 360 MB/s read with Blackmagic Disk Speed Test. These speeds are well in excess of the speeds you will be able to achieve with a NAS, the marketed purpose for the drives. Only time will tell whether these drives will be reliable, but with none DOA they're off to a good start.

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful.
Longest MBTF I could find
By Gadget Freak
Just what I was looking for, reliability. Obviously a 3-year warranty is a good indicator. The Deskstar NAS is a new product. It has the 1M MTBF vs. the regular Deskstar 7k4000 (HDS724040ALE640) which has a 0.8M MTBF. The NAS version also has a rotational stability sensor to help monitor the smart status better. I was looking for additional external storage for backups & videos. I installed 4 of these in an 4-bay external USB 3.0 enclosure (Dyconn Quartz 4). For around $1100 total installed cost, you can get nice 16Tb setup for all your "stuff". I've got mine connected to a MacMini. A good (non-SSD) 3.5" drive has about the same read/write speed as USB 3.0, thus in an external USB 3.0 setup, it will give you ~170-180 MB/s regardless of RAID setup.

Update #1
I was able to test drive speed vs various other drives. This drive performs as expected. I did not test in a RAID configuration. (sorry about the formatting, the last two nos. in each row are Read/Write in MB/s), all tests with BlackMagic

Mid--2011 Mac Mini
WD My Book Studio 4Tb, RAID 0 Firewire 800 800 megabit FW800 60 64
Apple 5400 rpm 750 Gb HD SATA III 6 gigabit SATA III 68 68
Toshiba/Apple 5400 500 Gb Laptop drive SATA III 3 gigabit Thunderbolt 63 63
Crucial M4 - 256 Gb SATA III 5 gigabit Thunderbolt 382 79
HGST 4 Tb NAS 3.5" Drive SATA III 6 gigabit Thunderbolt 163 160 (Seagate BackupPlus thunderbolt adapter)

2012 Mac Mini Server
Samsung 840 SSD - 500 Gb SATA III 6 gigabit SATA III 560 320
Samsung 840 SSD - 500 Gb x 2 - RAID 0 SATA III 6 gigabit SATA III 990 620
Patriot Magnum 64 Gb USB 3.0 Memory Stick USB 3.0 4.8 gigabit USB 3.0 242 120
Transcend 64 Gb USB 3.0 ?? Memory Stick USB 3.0 4.8 gigabit USB 3.0 15 15
HGST 4 Tb NAS 3.5" Drive SATA III 6 gigabit USB 3.0 131 126 (Dyconn Quartz 4, JOBD)
HGST 4 Tb NAS 3.5" Drive SATA III 6 gigabit USB 3.0 163 160 (Anker Uspeed adapter)

Update #2; I just tested four of these drives in RAID5 mode on the 4-bay USB 3.0 Dyconn.... way better than expected 250 Mb/s Read, 241 Write. Woo Hoo! So, double the single drive mode.

12 of 15 people found the following review helpful.
This thing is FAST
By Jeff Welch
Other than using an SSD, this is by far the fastest drive I have ever had, that said I purchased it for its size and reliability. Size is great, speed is awesome. The jury is out on reliability for me, maybe I'll revise this in two years!.

I like to retire my drives after a couple of years to head off reliability problems before they happen. I am in the process of using this drive to replace two 2TB drives from another manufacturer. I lost a drive on a laptop a few years ago and ever since I have become very paranoid about loosing my data (basically everything that I have made for close to 20 years, plus many movies, songs and pictures, I delete NOTHING).

If you have read a lot of Hard Drive reviews, you are probably more worried about which drive to pick now then when you started. After several weeks of research and reading, HGST seemed to me to be the best choice. Time will tell.

Assuming this drive works well over the next few months, I will purchase a second one and mirror them for data backup.

See all 19 customer reviews...More...