For a game library, either works and the difference will not be visible. The genuine distinction is that the 1TB WD10EZEX is conventionally recorded while the current 1TB BarraCuda is shingled, which matters only if the drive is ever repurposed into an array. Buy on price per terabyte.
At 1TB the honest comparison is between the WD10EZEX, a 7200rpm conventionally-recorded drive, and the ST1000DM014, a 7200rpm shingled one. Western Digital's own SMR list establishes the first; Seagate's own datasheet establishes the second.
For games that difference produces no observable effect. Installing is sequential, loading is reading, and neither exposes the shingling penalty. Anyone telling you a game library will be visibly worse on the shingled drive is overstating it.
Where it becomes real is the second life of the drive. Storage gets repurposed, the library drive becomes a backup target, then ends up in a NAS build two years later. A conventionally-recorded drive can make that journey and a shingled one cannot.
Since the recording difference is not visible in the intended use, the decision comes down to cost per terabyte on the day, and to capacity.
Both makers' families span the same sizes, and the ordering between them changes with promotions and stock rather than following any durable rule. Whichever is cheaper per terabyte at the capacity you want is the correct buy, and that is not a satisfying answer but it is the accurate one.
On capacity, 1TB is small for a 2026 game library. Single titles pass 100GB routinely, so the drive that stops you managing space is 2TB or 4TB rather than 1TB, and mechanical capacity is the cheap part of a build.
Neither belongs as the system drive. An operating system generates constant small random access, which is the workload mechanical storage handles worst and the one where an SSD's advantage is obvious to anyone using the machine.
One piece of 2026 context that changes the usual advice: the NAND shortage repriced flash sharply, and solid-state storage now costs several times what mechanical storage costs per terabyte. Guidance written before that repricing tells you an SSD is barely more expensive, and that is no longer true. If you are buying capacity, a larger hard drive is the honest value answer; buy the SSD for the boot volume and the random-access work, where it earns its premium on behaviour rather than on price.
The allocation that works is enough SSD for the system and the games you are playing this month, then as much mechanical capacity as the budget allows for everything else. Buying a small SSD and a small hard drive is the arrangement that leaves you managing space on both.
| Model | Capacity | Recording | Live price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WD10EZEX WD WD Blue | 1TB | CMR | — | Not in stock |
| ST1000DM014 Seagate BarraCuda | 1TB | SMR | — | Not in stock |
A dash under live price means we do not currently track that exact model in stock. The recording badge comes from the manufacturer document linked on each model's page.
Not in any way you will notice. At 1TB the WD10EZEX is conventionally recorded and the current BarraCuda is shingled, but neither difference is visible when installing and loading games. Buy whichever is cheaper per terabyte at the capacity you want.
Only for the drive's second life. Storage gets repurposed, and a conventionally-recorded drive can later go into a NAS or an array while a shingled one should not. If you expect the drive to outlive this build, that is a genuine tiebreaker.
More than 1TB. Modern titles routinely exceed 100GB, so a 1TB library holds fewer games than the number suggests. 2TB or 4TB is where most people stop managing space, and mechanical capacity is inexpensive relative to the rest of a build.
For the system and the games you actively play, yes. For the library, no, the NAND shortage repriced flash and it now costs several times what mechanical storage costs per terabyte. The right build has both, sized for their jobs.