Seagate IronWolf Pro HDD Spec and Price in Italy
IronWolf Pro is Seagate's heavy-duty NAS drive: 7200rpm across every capacity, 256MB of cache, a 300TB/year workload rating, and a five-year warranty, per the Seagate data sheet. The Pro designation buys the doubled workload rating and the longer warranty compared with the base IronWolf, plus the higher sustained throughput at the top capacities. It is the pick for large multi-bay arrays and RAID rebuilds, priced accordingly against WD Red Pro.
No tracked price — this page compares specifications alone.
Specifications
- Capacity
- 8TB
- Interface
- SATA
- Sequential read
- 255 MB/s
- Sequential write
- 255 MB/s
- Rotation speed
- 7200 RPM
- Form factor
- 3.5-inch
- Cache
- 256 MB
- Warranty
- 5 years
Capacities
| Configuration | Part number | Rotation speed | Cache |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8TB | ST8000NT001 | 7200 RPM | 256 MB |
| 12TB | ST12000NT001 | 7200 RPM | 256 MB |
| 16TB | ST16000NT001 | 7200 RPM | 256 MB |
| 20TB | ST20000NT001 | 7200 RPM | 256 MB |
| 4TB | ST4000NT001 | 7200 RPM | 256 MB |
Guides for this category
What owners and reviewers say
Summarised from 3 source(s), reviewed September 13, 2026. A source is counted only where it names this model exactly. How we track prices
Commonly praised
- Reviewers highlight very high per-drive capacity, with a five-year warranty and bundled data-recovery service.
- It uses conventional magnetic recording with no SMR write penalty and a strong NAS feature set including vibration sensors.
- Its workload rating and mean-time-between-failures figures suit multi-bay arrays.
- Owners value the large capacities and the five-year warranty.
Commonly criticised
- It is expensive, with street pricing above the launch list.
- It landed mid-to-lower in one review's comparison group, generally trailing the enterprise equivalent and the prior generation.
- A striking share of recent reviews report drives dying within weeks to a year, and a difficult warranty process.
Sources behind this summary
- Newegg — 4.4 out of 5 (201 ratings), as of September 13, 2026
- StorageReview — review
- Tom's Hardware — review
Sources
Every spec above was pulled from one of these — a field a source didn't state was left off rather than estimated.