7200.8 or 7200.10 as main drive?

Cyber-Mav

Cyber-Mav

Cyber-Mav

Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2005
Posts
19,795
Location
Midlands
hi all, ok here is whats happening. my current main c: drive is a 250gig 7200.8 8mb cache drive.
my secondary 160gig maxtor slave drive developed bad sectors so i ordered a 250gig 7200.10 seagate 16mb cache drive to replace it as a slave.

now im wondering is it worth me cloning the partitions over to make the 7200.10 drive the main c: drive in the pc or should i just leave it as the slave?
 
pcknight said:
What is the difference in design etc between the 7200.9 and the 7200.10?
Click to expand...

The 7200.10 uses perpendicular writing technology and is a fair bit faster than the older models.

I'd use the new drive provided I could either swap the partitions easily or if I was going to do a full re-install, which isn't a bad idea periodically anyway.
 
So, best to go for the 7200.10 then. I notice that the seek time on a 7200.9 is approx 8.3ms and on a 7200.10 it is 11ms. How come the newer one is slower?
 
Last edited:
perpendicular tech is a little slower on seaks but the higher data density means its a little quicker on transfers. in the real world its probably on par with the older generation drives.

also my main boot drive hardly gets a thrashing. its my second drive the old maxtor that really got battered since its used for network access and supplying data across the the network, video encoding and general file storage area.
 
just recieved my 250gig 7200.10 drive today and ran a hdtune benchmark on it,

it clears around 10mb per second extra in its transfer rates from start to end compared to my 7200.8 250gig drive.

very good speed increase from a 2 generation gap.
 
It is not worth buying any other 7200rpm hard drive at the moment other than a Seagate 7200.10 series.

5yr warranty
Perpendicular recording
Renowned Seagate reliability
No real difference in price to competitors.

@griff - yes, it would be fairly substantial. 80GB drives are quiet slow anyway (density etc) so you would gain about 15-20MB/s extra speed in transfer rate though seeks would be nigh on the same. Overall though, I'd say it would be noticable - I certainly noticed the difference between my 320GB 7200.10 and my 250GB 7200.8 (both as storage drives).
 
Last edited:
Decisions. Gee, not sure what to do. 8mb or 16mb. Thing is, the 200g is only 8mb and 250g is a bit too much in size for my use.

Are the SATA ones faster than the IDE ones, in real world use?

What gets me is that the Samsung 200g Hard drive is Seek time: 8.9ms but the Seagate 7200.10 200g one is Seek time: 11ms
Does this mean that the Samsung is faster or what? I am just about to order a large Hard Drive so i need to get this cleared up. Any help would be great.
 
Last edited:
pcknight said:
Decisions. Gee, not sure what to do. 8mb or 16mb. Thing is, the 200g is only 8mb and 250g is a bit too much in size for my use.

Are the SATA ones faster than the IDE ones, in real world use?

What gets me is that the Samsung 200g Hard drive is Seek time: 8.9ms but the Seagate 7200.10 200g one is Seek time: 11ms
Does this mean that the Samsung is faster or what? I am just about to order a large Hard Drive so i need to get this cleared up. Any help would be great.
Click to expand...
Real world use, SATA really probably isn't faster than IDE however certain features are only available on SATA e.g. NCQ which does speed up access of data, especially when multiple things access the disk at the same time.

Ignore manufacturer printed seek times - they are largely irrelevant and tell me, can you even measure 2.1ms, especially when you consider the difference in technologies used i.e. perpendicular vs parallel disk recording?

The 7200.10 seagates are so far ahead of any other drive, I cannot believe you'd even consider a Samsung or anything else. I suggest you watch this little animation on perpendicular recording which will show you somewhat how it works...

http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/recording_head/pr/PerpendicularAnimation.html
 
Last edited:
this seagate drive is very good. i do notice the difference if speed over the 160gig maxtor it replaced. the 7200.10 is quicker and im happy it comes with a 5 year warranty, the 2 maxtor drives which died on me only came with a 1 year warranty and funny enough they failed after 1 year of use.

stick to seagate from now on.

not sure what maxtor is trying to pull i got the older DX740 series of maxtor drives in many different machines and they still run fine even till today. i got a 13.6gig 7200rpm maxtor in my download pc which runs 24/7 all the time for the last 7 years and that drive has not failed me.

gess they are skimping on the newer drives, not sure why seagate even bothered to buy them out. :confused:
 
Good video. Looks like it is the Seagate then! Not sure if i would notice the difference between the 7200.9 and the 7200.10 drives though. I may go for the 160g 7200.9 as that looks good too.

EDIT: Just bought a 7200.9 160gb Drive and it is awesome! Well pleased with it. Didn't want a drive any bigger at the mo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom