I looked up both on desktech.com:

  1. ST8000AS0002
  2. ST8000NM0105

The price may change over time, but they currently appear to be basically identical.

The only metric that could be better is the power consumption, but it's a tiny amount in absolute terms (7.5W vs "<10").

  • Cache MB: 128 vs 256
  • MTBF: 800K vs 2M
  • TB/Year: 180 vs 550
  • Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read: 1 per 10e14 vs 1 sector per 10E15

What's the advantage of the "Archive" drive if it has a worse Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read and a worse MTBF rating?

  • Just a note, I always buy disks with 5-year warranties when I'm buying high capacity storage. I would also avoid SMR if possible. – Frank Thomas Mar 4 at 23:30

Here are spec sheet PDFs from Seagate:

Exos is a clear winner IMO. There are more important differences than you have listed:

  • Archive HDD uses the SMR technology (vs CMR in Exos), which makes it cheaper to manufacture but significantly decreases performance under certain workloads.
  • Archive has shorter warranty: 3 years vs. Exos with 5 years.
  • Max R/W speeds: 190 MB/s vs. 250 MB/s
  • I can't see rotational speed specified anywhere in the Archive HDD datasheet - it could be 5400 rpm vs. 7200 rpm of Exos

Archive HDD wins if you want to use it at near-freezing temperatures: Exos's specified min. temp is 5°.

  • 1
    Archive HDD RPM is listed as 5900 on Amazon. – Gordon Fogus Mar 4 at 23:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.