Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB

[Rob Williams]

Though there are larger drives available, they do not fit into everyones budget. Simply going from 500GB to 320GB cuts the price in half, which makes this almost a steal. We will compare with one of our recently reviewed 500GB drives and see how it stacks up.

After reading the review here, discuss it here!

This is one of the very few reviews of the 320GB 7200.10 instead of the giant 750GB drive. Beautiful charts and great benchmarks, thanks!!!

I'm jumping back and forth between this drive and the 150GB Raptor. It will be replacing the 74GB Raptor I have now, any suggestions? I have enough money for either drive, but I want to get the most bang for the buck performance wise as I don't necessarily even need a full 320GB of space.

[Rob Williams]

Thanks for the nice comments. We also reviewed the 750GB (Both the non-ES and ES versions), but felt it was neccessary to review this drive also. I picked it up because of a new build, and was too impressed to -not- write a review

If you care more about performance, then the 150GB may be the better choice. Personally, I am willing to give up a little performance for the extra space, because I store a lot of music and odds and ends. It's really up to you. If you want better performance, then the Raptor will probably suit you better. I've never actually seen real world differences with the Raptors though, so I always go for the one with more space. These 7200.10 drives are nothing to scoff at... they still give a great bang for the buck.

[Rory Buszka]

I received mine on Thursday.

I think that Seagate is one of the only manufacturers that hasn't had trouble with reliability of their drives. Western Digital, IBM/Hitachi Deskstar, and (more recently) Maxtor have all had periods of time in which their drives were considered to be of questionable quality because of a high incidence of failures. Have I left any brands out?

Originally Posted by Rob Williams

Thanks for the nice comments. We also reviewed the 750GB (Both the non-ES and ES versions), but felt it was neccessary to review this drive also. I picked it up because of a new build, and was too impressed to -not- write a review

If you care more about performance, then the 150GB may be the better choice. Personally, I am willing to give up a little performance for the extra space, because I store a lot of music and odds and ends. It's really up to you. If you want better performance, then the Raptor will probably suit you better. I've never actually seen real world differences with the Raptors though, so I always go for the one with more space. These 7200.10 drives are nothing to scoff at... they still give a great bang for the buck.

Thanks for the info Rob!
I really do want the performance since it will be for my main OS drive, but I am just having trouble justifying the high pricetag of the Raptor. I think I'll probably end up with a 250 GB or 350 GB 7200.10.

I've had nothing but Seagate drives (about five in total) except for this 74GB Raptor I have now and not one has ever failed on me. However, the only drive I had fail on me was my Raptor. HAHA
But I have to give Western Digital props because their advanced RMA service is simply amazing. My Raptor went down the day after Thanksgiving and I e-mailed them on Sunday, got an RMA confirmation on Monday, and was back up and running with a brand new Raptor on Wednesday!