torque79
Distinguished
- Jun 14, 2006
- 440
- 0
- 18,780
disappointed not to see more seagates included, but oh well. I don't care if my hundreds of gb of data move around faster or not, or even if the drive is noisy. I just care about drive longevity and reliability. drives with a 5 year warranty are the only ones worth considering in my book. Though of course that certainly does not guarantee more longevity, it shows the company has more faith in its product life (especially in a time when you can buy 1 year warranty drives!).
I have a backup hard drive where I keep my most important/prized data in a seperate PC. It's a seagate too. if either dies within 5 years, I get a replacement and then copy the data back onto it. I would never trust my important data to just one hard drive anyways, so warranty period and capacity are all that matter to me.
I have a backup hard drive where I keep my most important/prized data in a seperate PC. It's a seagate too. if either dies within 5 years, I get a replacement and then copy the data back onto it. I would never trust my important data to just one hard drive anyways, so warranty period and capacity are all that matter to me.
troubleshoot
Distinguished
- Jan 17, 2007
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
Superb idea, noise is becomming more of an issue now that we have such high performance systems, sometimes multiple, in our homes and home offices.
Noise is becoming a huge consideration for me, well and my girlfriend.
Toms, lets put that on the list for future tests!
Space Cowboy
SF, CA
joke
Distinguished
- May 15, 2005
- 249
- 0
- 18,760
Someone is missing the perfect reason for having 16Mb of cache AND a 300Gb/s sata interface (I assume to pump up the WD piggy data transfer rates). My HD Tach repeatedly shows me at 2281MB/s (burst/game speed) and a sustained (avg xfer speed of 188 MB/s over the entire 1.3TB). Show us the real numbers. This appears to be WAY over the numbers you quote...
Joe
swalkenshaw
Distinguished
- Dec 13, 2006
- 10
- 0
- 18,510
Yes, like Torque79, I am disapointed that Seagate drives are not included. The 5 year warranty is great. We all know that the ES series is slower than the regular 7900.10 series. Another instance of "Who Pays the Bills, gets Top Billing" at Toms Hardware.
You listen to Patrick "Intel" Schmid and Achim "WD" Roos. When I need an extra 750 GB drive, it will be availible and not sold out
You listen to Patrick "Intel" Schmid and Achim "WD" Roos. When I need an extra 750 GB drive, it will be availible and not sold out
Phrozt
Distinguished
- Jun 19, 2002
- 565
- 0
- 18,980
HORRIBLE review....
Look.. we know that if you pick the smallest raptor.. it's going to be the fastest. Great. We've known that for 2 or 3 years now. It's not a big surprise. However, it does screw up the charts. I understand it is a benchmark to meet, but those line graphs were condensed because they had to take into account the incredibly high score of the raptor, making it harder to compare the up and coming models, which was the whole point of the article!
I'm also very dissapointed to see the lack of representation on seagate drives. Here you have 4 freaking hitachi drives, and only one.. extreme.. seagate. That just skews the results even more. The big thing about seagate is the perpendicular recording, and when you only include *one* model... and the slowest one at that, it's a horrible representation for the PR line.
So, to summarize:
- We already know raptor stats. A 76gig HD has *NO* right being in an article about storage "beasts" in the first place, and raptors themselves are already well documented...
- Selection of drives were horrible. An overabundance on rudamentary technology was featured (hitachis), and a gross misrepresentation of new technology was featured (the lone seagate)
As you can clearly tell, I was very dissapointed in the article, and I don't feel that it helped me at all, which really sucks because I'm currently in the market to build another computer.
Wasted time at it's finest.
Look.. we know that if you pick the smallest raptor.. it's going to be the fastest. Great. We've known that for 2 or 3 years now. It's not a big surprise. However, it does screw up the charts. I understand it is a benchmark to meet, but those line graphs were condensed because they had to take into account the incredibly high score of the raptor, making it harder to compare the up and coming models, which was the whole point of the article!
I'm also very dissapointed to see the lack of representation on seagate drives. Here you have 4 freaking hitachi drives, and only one.. extreme.. seagate. That just skews the results even more. The big thing about seagate is the perpendicular recording, and when you only include *one* model... and the slowest one at that, it's a horrible representation for the PR line.
So, to summarize:
- We already know raptor stats. A 76gig HD has *NO* right being in an article about storage "beasts" in the first place, and raptors themselves are already well documented...
- Selection of drives were horrible. An overabundance on rudamentary technology was featured (hitachis), and a gross misrepresentation of new technology was featured (the lone seagate)
As you can clearly tell, I was very dissapointed in the article, and I don't feel that it helped me at all, which really sucks because I'm currently in the market to build another computer.
Wasted time at it's finest.
RichPLS
Champion
- Aug 24, 2004
- 15,886
- 0
- 50,780
Someone is missing the perfect reason for having 16Mb of cache AND a 300Gb/s sata interface (I assume to pump up the WD piggy data transfer rates). My HD Tach repeatedly shows me at 2281MB/s (burst/game speed) and a sustained (avg xfer speed of 188 MB/s over the entire 1.3TB). Show us the real numbers. This appears to be WAY over the numbers you quote...
Joe
What hard drive do you have that performs sustained transfers at 188MB/sec over the entire drive?!?
IMO, the real numbers are shown for the drives tested... which include each drive all the way through its capacity, and on individual charts.
on the other hand, a noise rating in dB's would of been appreciated. :idea:
RichPLS
Champion
- Aug 24, 2004
- 15,886
- 0
- 50,780
They used the middle sized Raptor, the 74GB version...
and only the I/O tests were grouped into one chart, and it is pretty easy to distinguish what drive performed what... all of the other charts were simply displaying the performance of each drive ac ross the entire disk, one chart per drive... What could be better than that?
Either I am not seeing what you are complaining about, or perhaps you simply do not understand the benchmarks and/or review... Have you gone back to take a second look at it?
and only the I/O tests were grouped into one chart, and it is pretty easy to distinguish what drive performed what... all of the other charts were simply displaying the performance of each drive ac ross the entire disk, one chart per drive... What could be better than that?
Either I am not seeing what you are complaining about, or perhaps you simply do not understand the benchmarks and/or review... Have you gone back to take a second look at it?
joke
Distinguished
- May 15, 2005
- 249
- 0
- 18,760
A little off-topic but to answer your question. Actually, I have two volumes that do that. Hd Tach (whatever the latest version is) reports that my 4-drive raid 5 array has a sustained read rate of 190MB/sec across 1Tb and my 4-drive raid 0 has a rate of 302MB/sec across 500G. Both have a burst rate of > 1800M with read caching turned on. These are Seagate 7200.10 500G drives on Vista 64 and I cannot even hear them (in a very quite cabinet). I am very pleased with this setup.
More to the point I was making was in regards to burst read performance; when properly configured and driven, HD Tach indicates that the 16Mb cache does greatly improve those times (note the burst read performance). I don't have any other software to go with (hd tach) but my configuration dwarfs any other setup that it has to display.
The problem with the internet is that is is a slow publishing medium.
The article says that $150 is a great price for 320GB hard drives. 500GB drives are under $130.
The world has changed a great deal:
I watch HDTV on my computers. The data is stored 2 switches away on a 500GB SATA hard drive (NO raid). There is no problem with disk speed. Even with multiple HDTV streams being written/read.
My wife runs her business on the same network. Data is stored 2 switches away on a 250GB SATA hard drive (NO raid). Again there is no problem with disk speed. Even with multiple users.
---
The only consumers who have disk speed problems are gamers. They use RAID to solve their problems.
---
It is very hard to tolerate reviews where a blind comparison would show no difference.
If there is no difference, say so.
The article says that $150 is a great price for 320GB hard drives. 500GB drives are under $130.
The world has changed a great deal:
I watch HDTV on my computers. The data is stored 2 switches away on a 500GB SATA hard drive (NO raid). There is no problem with disk speed. Even with multiple HDTV streams being written/read.
My wife runs her business on the same network. Data is stored 2 switches away on a 250GB SATA hard drive (NO raid). Again there is no problem with disk speed. Even with multiple users.
---
The only consumers who have disk speed problems are gamers. They use RAID to solve their problems.
---
It is very hard to tolerate reviews where a blind comparison would show no difference.
If there is no difference, say so.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Intel SSD 320 series fried diode (?) CR3, one contact, should I remove it?
- Started by kornsoud
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
Question Can I just upgrade my graphics card or should I be upgrading my processor as well for UE5?- Started by Tolstoy1990
- Replies: 7
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question Microsoft Defender found Trojans on my PC
- Latest: ohio_buckeye
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram