Raptor has been dethroned as best SATA drive.

Just seen these, shame I've recently bought a 320GB drive, as I'd have preferred the extra speed to be honest.

Still it's good to see HDD tech moving forward fairly quickly for once.
Only a few months ago 166GB per platter was the biggest size available.
 
sithlord said:
Now the only thing going for the Raptor is access times :D

Very nice... though I suppose WD will eventually introduce perpendicular recording into the raptors, at which point they'll again enjoy a significant STR advantage as well.

But yes, for now the Seagates absolutely kick ass. Seagate seems to really be on top of their game atm, some batches of noisy drives notwithstanding.
 
I wonder if the 250gb platters will be used in larger sized drives. The ones in those links are 250gb and seeing as i can't read what's on those sites i don't know :p
 
I wouldn't be surprised, the 750Gb 7200.10 is a 4 platter design so the 250Gb platters could be paving the way for Seagate's own 1Tb drive.

What is surprising though is that it's still under the 7200.10 banner. I would have thought that a jump from 190Mb platters to 250Mb ones would have warranted a new model designation.
 
Um... all the Raptor has ever really "had" is the access times, no?

I'd still say the Raptor is in the better position - all WD have to do is put perp. recording and a couple of large platters on it and it'll be right back up there with the rest. :)
 
Any idea when these drives will be in the shops?

I was just about to get some 500GB Seagates, but if these'll be out in a few weeks I might wait for them.
 
meansizzler said:
That 28mb minimum is scary, no good if you need the raw transfer speed as if it dips that slow the drive is useless for that situation..
The transfer rate speeds are the numbers on the left hand side of the chart. ;)
 
meansizzler said:
That 28mb minimum is scary, no good if you need the raw transfer speed as if it dips that slow the drive is useless for that situation..

That's just an anomoly, and if they ran the test again it probably wouldn't be there.
It's probably just some thing in the background causing it to slow down temporarily.
 
Back
Top Bottom