you can still find one and the drive might ever go into an array, because this is the conventionally-recorded version and it is the one that survives a rebuild.
the drive is a single desktop volume for games, media or archives, where shingled recording costs you nothing and this is the model actually in stock.
| ST1000DM010 | ST1000DM014 | |
|---|---|---|
| Model number | ST1000DM010 | ST1000DM014 |
| Capacity | 1TB | 1TB |
| Form factor | 3.5" | 3.5" |
| Recording technology | CMR | SMR |
| Rotational speed | 7200 RPM | 7200 RPM |
| Cache | 64 MB | 256 MB |
| Workload rate | 55 TB/yr | 55 TB/yr |
| Warranty | 2 years | 2 years |
| Status | Discontinued | Current |
| Live price | $60 | — |
| Live $/TB | $59.99 | — |
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.
These two drives are sold under the same product name. A Seagate BarraCuda 1TB is either of them, the listing frequently does not say which, and the specification that differs between them is the one that decides whether the drive belongs in an array.
The ST1000DM010 is conventionally recorded. The ST1000DM014 replaced it and is shingled, added to Seagate's BarraCuda datasheet at revision K in September 2020. Seagate's own document establishes both, which is why this page can state it flatly rather than hedging.
This is the cleanest illustration of why capacity-level CMR/SMR lists fail. Any list that answers the question for a BarraCuda 1TB has to pick one of these two answers and will be wrong for half the drives sold under that description.
The practical consequence is that if you bought a BarraCuda 1TB before roughly 2020 you probably have the conventional drive, and if you buy one today you almost certainly have the shingled one. Same box, same name, different product.
Cache is the other visible change: 64MB on the older drive against 256MB on the newer one. A larger cache is part of how shingled drives absorb incoming writes before reorganising them, so the two changes are related rather than coincidental.
Both are 7200rpm 3.5-inch drives with the same two-year warranty and the same workload rating in the region of 55TB per year. Neither is a NAS drive by positioning, and that is worth saying about the conventional one too: being CMR removes one objection to array use, not all of them.
There is no performance comparison on this page and there will not be one. What we can tell you is what Seagate documents, which is the recording method, the cache and the rated envelope. Anyone publishing a benchmark difference between these two is measuring one sample of each.
The ST1000DM010 is discontinued. Where it appears now it is old stock or second-hand, and the supply is finite and shrinking. The ST1000DM014 is the current model and the one a retailer will ship you.
That inverts the usual shape of a comparison. Normally you choose; here the market has largely chosen, and the honest framing is that the conventional option is a thing you might find rather than a thing you can order.
If the drive is destined for a desktop, this does not matter and the current model is fine. If you specifically need conventional recording at 1TB, the WD10EZEX is a current 7200rpm drive that WD's own recording-technology list confirms is conventional, and it is a more realistic answer than hunting for discontinued stock.
The case against the ST1000DM010 is availability and age. It is discontinued, so anything you find is old stock or used, and buying a second-hand drive to avoid shingled recording is a strange trade if the drive is going into a desktop where shingling would not have mattered. The case against the ST1000DM014 is narrower but sharper: if it ends up in a parity array, either now or when the machine is repurposed in three years, it is the wrong drive and you will discover that during a rebuild rather than before one.
No, despite being sold under the same BarraCuda 1TB name. The ST1000DM010 is conventionally recorded with 64MB of cache; the ST1000DM014 that replaced it is shingled with 256MB. Seagate's own datasheet establishes both, and the difference decides whether the drive is safe in an array.
Almost certainly the ST1000DM014, because the ST1000DM010 is discontinued. If the distinction matters to you, check the part number on the listing rather than the product name, since the name is identical for both.
Not meaningfully. Games, media and archives are written once and read afterwards, which is what shingled recording handles well. The penalty appears during sustained random writing, which is what a RAID rebuild is and what a desktop is not.
The WD10EZEX is the practical answer: a current 7200rpm drive that Western Digital's own client SMR list confirms is conventionally recorded. Hunting for discontinued ST1000DM010 stock is possible but not a sensible plan for a new build.