7200.10 8M Cache OR 7200.9 16M Cache ??

[zeuson]

Here are two drives from seagate.
ST3250820AS 250M 7200.10 8M Cache
ST3300622AS 300M 7200.9 16M Cache.

These two drives I am looking at have almost the same price per gigabyte. Generally people agree 7200.10 is better than 7200.9. However in this case, the 7200.9 has double size cache.

Which drive would be the better choice? The new technology or the bigger cache? (I am fine with both size so size is not a factor). :?: :?:

 

[ReliReli]

Eh, to be honest I think they'd work pretty much identically to the other, although I always seem to have better experience with whatever has the bigger cache.

I'm not too well-versed with Seagates in particular, but I know they're very good with what I do know. Don't think it'd be too different though.

 

[PCKid777]

I've heard that more cache helps out with bigger files or something like that.

I just typed in the model numbers on Google and I must ask, have you looked at Seagate's site to see the benefits/drawbacks between the two? It seems that the newer 7200.10 is more reliable than the 7200.9, but I don't know what the failure rates are for Seagate so reliability for the newer model may not be the deciding factor.

 

[xyzunit]

I've heard that more cache helps out with bigger files or something like that.

I just typed in the model numbers on Google and I must ask, have you looked at Seagate's site to see the benefits/drawbacks between the two? It seems that the newer 7200.10 is more reliable than the 7200.9, but I don't know what the failure rates are for Seagate so reliability for the newer model may not be the deciding factor.

Seagate has a 5 year warranty, so at least your hard drive could be replaced (who cares about your important files?!)

 

[BustedSony]

I've had to RMA both of two 320 Gig 7200.9's, one IDE, one Sata (and different vendors) for clicking and read retries; my one 320 gig 7200.10 Sata is a bit faster on loading times and so far is reliable. Also the 7200.10 is Sata 2, unlike the 7200.9. That's all I can say.

 

[PCKid777]

That's why you're suppose to backup your important files, any HDD can fail at any moment.

 

[MattC]

Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but the .10 uses perpendicular recording technology, which means fewer platters are needed to store the same amount of data. It may very well be that the two drives you are considering have a different number of platters - all other things being equal, fewer platters is better. The more platters, the more room for something to go wrong.

Additionally, the seek times on the .10 may be faster. Greater density of data means the head doesn't need to move as far to get to the desired data.

Personally, I would use price, warrenty, capacity, and speed (from reviews - google them) as my criteria. The cache \is nice, but 8 megs is plenty - the speed increase in moving up to 16 megs will only exist under certain situations (large file transfers, and repeated access of the same files, to name a few), so while it should be considered, don't let it alone make your decision.

 

[BustedSony]

I've had to RMA both of two 320 Gig 7200.9's, one IDE, one Sata (and different vendors) for clicking and read retries; my one 320 gig 7200.10 Sata is a bit faster on loading times and so far is reliable. Also the 7200.10 is Sata 2, unlike the 7200.9. That's all I can say.

Your 7200.10 is one of the few that uses perpendicular recording (besides 750GB) with 160GB/platter and uses 16MB.
Not comparable here.

All the other 7200.10 uses 127GB platters.

BTW, I never knew 7200.10 had a crappo 8MB version!

Yah so I was using the 7200.10 versus .9 RMA history as the comparison, not the cache size or density. The manufacturing techniques are probably the same within each series, even if the platter density is different. Personally I would just go for the 320gig 7200.10 for a few dollars more. It's about the same cost per gig, maybe less, and it's faster than the 250. I have not had any heat issues with the 7200.10 either.

 

[zeuson]

OK, I have found this page:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=346&num=1

It compares two notebook hard drive with 8M and 16M cache. Looks like 16M does have some advantage here. Also, I am still not too convinced that the 7200.10 is more reliable. Learnt my lesson on IBM DesktopStar. First one died within three months. The replacement died just after 3 years warranty.

However since I am going to run Raid 0, therefore I will buy two disks so the 250G option suits me well. (500G plus my existing 180G hard drive should get me going to a while). Why spend money for the extra 100G I don't really need right now?

Maybe I should just go toss a coin??

 

[zeuson]

I've had to RMA both of two 320 Gig 7200.9's, one IDE, one Sata (and different vendors) for clicking and read retries; my one 320 gig 7200.10 Sata is a bit faster on loading times and so far is reliable. Also the 7200.10 is Sata 2, unlike the 7200.9. That's all I can say.

The 7200.9 300G one is also SATA 2.

 

[mad_fitzy]

Raid 0 won't give you 500gb + 180 it will give you 250 + 180.

 

[zeuson]

Raid 0 won't give you 500gb + 180 it will give you 250 + 180.

Are you sure?! Raid 1 gives you 250gb. Raid 0 gives you 500 gb. Great performance, double chance to fail.

 

[qwertycopter]

Raid 0 won't give you 500gb + 180 it will give you 250 + 180.

You're thinking of Raid 1, disk mirroring. Raid 0 is disk striping and will give 500 GB.

I highly recommend the 7200.10 320GB 16MB Cache SataII. They're only about $95, and have execellent performance.. nearly as good as a Raptor at 10k RPM. Why pay for an extra 100GB you "don't need?" Well, the price is right, for one. For two, these drives have a 5 year warranty. Awesome. After format you'll have about 470GB with the drives you selected. After format with the 320's, you have around 600GB. That's 130GB more for like, what, $35??

 

[BustedSony]

Raid 0 won't give you 500gb + 180 it will give you 250 + 180.

You're thinking of Raid 1, disk mirroring. Raid 0 is disk striping and will give 500 GB.

I highly recommend the 7200.10 320GB 16MB Cache SataII. They're only about $95, and have execellent performance.. nearly as good as a Raptor at 10k RPM. Why pay for an extra 100GB you "don't need?" Well, the price is right, for one. For two, these drives have a 5 year warranty. Awesome. After format you'll have about 470GB with the drives you selected. After format with the 320's, you have around 600GB. That's 130GB more for like, what, $35??

Yes, I agree, I've been trying to say just that. Thank you. I think that along with the WD Raptor and SE2 drives the Seagate 7200.10 perpendicular recording drive is the best thing going.


And yes Wusy, "Sata 2" is wrong, it's Sata 3.0 gbs, but is that point REALLY relevant to the discussion?!

 

[qwertycopter]

And yes Wusy, "Sata 2" is wrong, it's Sata 3.0 gbs, but is that point REALLY relevant to the discussion?!

Yes, I realized I made the mistake. But it isn't the point, wusy. You're just being a tight ass

 

[zeuson]

Thanks guys. I will take the advice and go for the 320G 7200.10 with 16M cache. Funny that if you compare the seagate hard drive manual line by line. The 7200.10 seems to be slower than 7200.9. For example, the delay from power up/stand by to ready is 15 seconds for 7200.10 and 11 seconds for 7200.9. The 7200.9 also has higher sustained data throughput. The 7200.9 is even quiter at idle. I am talking about 320G in this case. Other hard drive size may have different speed.