it is cheaper on the day and the drive will live in a desktop holding games, media or archives, where shingled recording is a non-issue.
you want conventional recording without checking a part number, or the drive might be repurposed into an array later in its life.
| ST1000DM014 | WD10EZEX | |
|---|---|---|
| Model number | ST1000DM014 | WD10EZEX |
| Capacity | 1TB | 1TB |
| Form factor | 3.5" | 3.5" |
| Recording technology | SMR | CMR |
| Rotational speed | 7200 RPM | 7200 RPM |
| Cache | 256 MB | 64 MB |
| Workload rate | 55 TB/yr | — |
| Warranty | 2 years | 2 years |
| Status | Current | Current |
Recording technology is highlighted because it is usually the actual differentiator, and each value comes from the manufacturer document linked on that model's page. A dash means the maker does not state that field. Prices are live and exclude out-of-stock listings.
At 1TB these two are the closest thing consumer storage has to a like-for-like matchup: both 7200rpm 3.5-inch desktop drives from the two remaining hard drive manufacturers, at essentially the same market position.
The genuine difference is recording technology. Western Digital's own client SMR list names which of its drives are shingled and the WD10EZEX is not among them, with the document stating that all other capacity points use conventional recording. Seagate's datasheet states shingled for the current ST1000DM014.
So this is one of the few comparisons where a manufacturer document establishes a clear technical difference rather than a marketing one.
For the workload a 1TB desktop drive actually does, holding games, media, documents and archives, the difference will not be visible. Installing is sequential, reading is unaffected, and there is no rebuild to expose the penalty.
Shingled recording overlaps tracks to raise density, so modifying data under an existing track can force the tracks above it to be rewritten. That is invisible for sequential work and severe during a rebuild, which is hours of sustained writing with no idle time for the drive to reorganise.
That means the honest advice for a desktop buyer is to buy whichever is cheaper per terabyte on the day, and the ordering between these two changes with promotions rather than following any durable rule.
Where it becomes a genuine tiebreaker is the drive's second life. Storage gets repurposed: the library drive becomes a backup target, then ends up in a NAS build. The conventionally-recorded drive can make that journey and the shingled one should not.
There is a larger point that applies regardless of which of these you pick: 1TB is at the worst end of the cost-per-terabyte curve for mechanical drives.
Most of a drive's cost is the mechanism rather than the platters, so small drives spread a fixed cost across very little capacity. Stepping to 2TB or 4TB usually improves the rate substantially for a modest increase in absolute price.
If the constraint is a single bay and a hard budget, 1TB is a real answer. If the constraint is just what you assumed you needed, check what the next size up costs before deciding between these two.
The case against the WD10EZEX is that you may be paying a premium for a distinction that does not affect your use. If this drive will spend its whole life as a desktop library volume, the conventional recording buys you nothing you will notice, and choosing it over a cheaper shingled drive is paying for insurance against a repurposing that may never happen. The case against the ST1000DM014 is the mirror image: it is the cheaper drive right up until the day it goes into an array, at which point it is the wrong one and the discovery happens during a rebuild.
Only in one respect that most buyers will never encounter. The WD10EZEX is conventionally recorded and the current BarraCuda 1TB is shingled, which matters in an array and not on a desktop. On everything else they are closely matched 7200rpm desktop drives.
Yes, per Western Digital's own client SMR list, which names the shingled models and states that all other capacity points use conventional recording. The WD10EZEX is not on the shingled list. That is a manufacturer statement rather than an inference from the family name.
We do not publish performance comparisons, and both are 7200rpm 3.5-inch drives with the same interface. The specification difference that is documented is recording technology and cache size, not throughput, and any speed figure you see quoted between these two is one person's sample.
Very often, yes. 1TB is at the worst end of the cost-per-terabyte curve because most of a drive's cost is the mechanism rather than the platters. Check what 2TB or 4TB costs before settling this comparison, the capacity decision usually matters more than the brand one.