PAST 30 DAYS

LOWEST PRICE

In Desktop Internal Hard Drives

Pros: The Seagate Ironwolf 16 TB HDD is spacious, robust for a platter drive, and dense with a cache of 256 MB and a speed of 7,200 RPM on a typical SATA III power and data connection. You can really tell the platters are packed tight as this drive is a couple pounds or at least feels like it. Upon formatting in a Windows 10 x64 machine, this drive offers 14.5 TB usable. While this drive is intended for a NAS environment, I always utilize drives in a JBOD environment with manual RAID 1 so as to be more selective over data. On power-up, this drive is significantly louder than others I’ve owned, probably due to the seek arm aligning; however it presents no issue after a couple seconds. Reads: This Ironwolf drive performed surprisingly well in all read tests I ran on it. Utilizing HDTune, speeds started around 270 MB/sec and eventually fell to 125 MB/sec at the end of the platter structure. Access time was in the 14-16ms range with CPU utilization of 8-9% on a 7940X (14-core) system. Bursts were nearly at 500 MB/sec, however the cache fills quickly on a large transfer. Placing photography work on this new drive, it’s performed very well, and while not at the speed of an SSD, the cache helps to speed up short term data. This makes it feel at times like an SSD since my particular work is serial. Manually upping the queue / threads beyond 2 starts to make any performance metrics dip seemingly square to the amount of requests, though giving this drive many small files makes performance quite impacted. For an as-expected NAS environment though, most users are requesting a mix of files or larger transfers and I saw no issue with that given an expected performance drop. In Crystal DiskMark x64, this meant a sequential read of again, over 200 MB/sec; around 230. Yet any 4K data (where traditional HDDs struggle) relegated this drive to sub-2 MB/sec performance. As usual, if you need high performance on many tiny files, go SSD / NVMe. Writes: The writes on this drive proved similar to the read levels. Transfers start off fast, reaching around 250 MB/sec at the start of the platter, then falling in toothed fashion down to 125 MB/sec at the end. Bursts clocked in just under 300 MB/sec for writes which is very impressive for a platter drive. Access time was about 5-6ms, with identical CPU usage. Crystal DiskMark x64 echoed similar results as above, with writes reaching a generalized 250 MB/sec, yet at 4 KB file size, falling to 2.5 MB/sec. In sending over large amounts of data to this new working drive (over 5 TB), I saw the cache benefit greatly with video files and other large pieces of data, far exceeding typical transfer rates. Sometimes I’d see bursts to this drive at over 1 GB/sec, holding for a few, then moving down to the 200 MB/sec range so it simply depends on what you’re writing to this drive in terms of file make up to accurately gauge performance.

Running now for 30 days. No problems. Bought 2 and both are fine.

plugged in, has worked for the past two weeks. No overt warnings about excessive bad sectors

great price fast service no problems installed like a dream

I purchased two of these (my NAS requires that they be installed in pairs). Seagate drives do not fail.

I could almost say that it was a new drive and not refurbished by the packaging. Been running fine so far.

Ran 4 of these in a storage array for a few years. They replaced a similar array built on smaller SATA drives. Needless to say, they're muuuuch faster than the SATA drives.

I'm rating New Egg not the product as I've not yet used the product. New Egg is my go to place for my computer stuff. I previously wrote a bad review (can't find it to change it) but it was actually for a 3rd seller which actually had a good ending. As did this purchase. I recommend New Egg.

Both drives transfer much faster, and much more consistently, than previous consumer drives. Can definitely tell they're enterprise-class. Copied 150GB of very large virtual machine files from cheap SSD to 8TB EXOS at 300MB/s. FLAC files copied at half that speed. Write speeds were fairly consistent throughout the entire runs.