Seagate 7200.11 500GB SATA-II 32MB "VS" WD (WD5000AAKS) 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache

Nelly

Nelly

Nelly

Soldato
Joined
19 Dec 2003
Posts
7,323
Location
Grimsby, UK
As the topic reads, has anyone tried out the new seagate 500GB drives? just wondering if they have any peformance gain to warrant purchasing them?

Any info is appreciated, would love to see some benches etc & has anyone found any comparative reviews? :)
 
Last edited:
the seagate is faster but appears to have a lottery on if you get a loud one. Id go with the WD. i beleive the speed difference is only noticeable in benchmarking or transfering large files a lot.
 
Talrinys said:
I believe the 7200.11 series will give about 85 MB/s which is quite crazy.
Click to expand...

There's a review here, doesn't look too good http://techreport.com/articles.x/13440/15

Review said:
With 250GB platters, 32MB of cache, and a 7,200-RPM spindle speed, the Barracuda 7200.11 should be the fastest high-capacity drive on the market. Except that it isn't. Results from our performance testing are mixed at best, with the new 'cuda excelling in some tests but faltering badly in others.

If we just relied on HD Tach, the drive would look like a winner, with pack-leading transfer rates and a very quick random access time. That isn't the whole story, though. Those fast transfer rates don't carry over to FC-Test, where we saw the Barracuda turn in dismal throughput with file creation workloads and an uninspired performance overall. The only bright spot was the ISO test pattern, whose small number of large files most closely resembles HD Tach's sustained transfer rate tests.
Click to expand...
 
That's not so good, I was looking for a new 500Gb drive and had only just decided on this one, back to the drawing board I guess :(
 
Get the Western Digital AAKS, it's a fantastic drive and has MANY consistently good reviews. I'm picking one up soon.
 
the 7200.11 is a very good drive, i know someone that has it, and its v. good. His is quiet and very fast at loading data/game maps.

Matt.
 
I have 2 of the new 250GB Seagate 7200.10s - (ST3250410AS), which are the new 250GB single platter...running them in IDE mode, and so far must say I am pleased with them, they are very quiet, even quieter than my 500GB WD AAKSs, and give very good move/copy, does give very good Average read figures in HDTach.

I have just copied a folder (containing files and folders of many different sizes) of size 1.93GB from the 250GB Seagate to a 320GB Seagate 7200.10, and it took 59 seconds. With the same folder on a 500GB WD AAKS, I copied it over to the 320GB Seagate, this took 2 seconds less than the 250GB seagate, ie 57 seconds...:)
 
Does anyone have any benches yet comparing the Seagate 7200.11 500GB SATA-II 32MB & WD (WD5000AAKS) 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache ??

Will windows load faster? will games load faster? will defragging be faster? etc etc.

I'm interested in the Seagate 7200.11 series but I want to see evidence that its worth switching to them. :)

Would appreciate any info.
 
Nelly said:
Does anyone have any benches yet comparing the Seagate 7200.11 500GB SATA-II 32MB & WD (WD5000AAKS) 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache ??

Will windows load faster? will games load faster? will defragging be faster? etc etc.

I'm interested in the Seagate 7200.11 series but I want to see evidence that its worth switching to them. :)

Would appreciate any info.
Click to expand...

not noticeably fractionally, both drives are good imo, far superiors noise wise to those of 2 years ago.

This 250GB single platter drives should be quieter than the 500GB Wester Digital, plus when you test them don't copy onto another different drive copy onto the same drive, also make sure neither is the OS drive.
 
sosrandom said:
plus when you test them don't copy onto another different drive copy onto the same drive
Click to expand...
If you do that you'll never get anywhere near the true speed of the drive, the reported (or calculated if you're timing it) speed will be between 20 & 30 percent of what the drive is capable of due to the head movements between the reads and writes.

The only way you can truely tell the speed by copying files is if you use a source device and transfer mechanism which is significantly faster than the target, that way the target is the bottleneck and the true speed of the device can be seen.
 
rpstewart said:
If you do that you'll never get anywhere near the true speed of the drive, the reported (or calculated if you're timing it) speed will be between 20 & 30 percent of what the drive is capable of due to the head movements between the reads and writes.

The only way you can truely tell the speed by copying files is if you use a source device and transfer mechanism which is significantly faster than the target, that way the target is the bottleneck and the true speed of the device can be seen.
Click to expand...

just saying that cos my 320GB drive is slower than my WD 500 GB AAKS's, but yeah I didn't think about having to read and write the files, however as I have 2 I used the 2nd AAKS to copy from when doing it myself.

Copying a 3.41GB file (from another WD 500GB AAKS) to my WD 500GB AAKS took 1min 15sec, to an old Maxtor 10 160GB drive took 1min 53secs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom