Segate Vs Hitachi 400Gb??

High transfer rate is more important for video work.

The higher data density on the Seagate gives it the higher transfer rate but lower seek times. The converse applies to the Hitachi although using 5 platters will increase the noise / heat output. NCQ is meaningless in desktops. Price is about the same. I think the Seagate warranty is 5 yrs compared to 3 for the Hitachi. I'd probably end up going for the Seagate.

However since that drive will be used for the reading and writing of video upon processing and for general desktop stuff, would the slower random access time (4 ms slower than the Hitachi) of the Segate negate the advantages it has with the higher transfer rate? That is since the head would be going back and forth considerably in the case of the Segate, would it in the end take longer than the Hitachi?

For non video editing applications, would the Segate still be OK with the slower random access time or the Hitachi with faster access time but lower transfer rate?

Would the use of the Segate (NCQ) on a non-NCQ motherboard result in even slower performance than the Hitachi as I have heard there is a processing overhead even though the NCQ might not be supported by the motherboard.

Both drives are roughly the same price so interested in all your opinions.

Thanks.

Has anyone seen the review on SR (www.storagereview.com) regarding the 7200.8? Its benchmarks and the conclusion are very negative. Most benchmarks (apart from STR) are not in favour for the Seagate and suggest the Maxtor and Hitachi 7K400 as better drives. To confuse maters, gamepc.com do a comparison of the 7200.8 and 7K400 and find in favour of the 7200.8? Whilst the STR is very high for the Seagate, it fails at most simulated benchmarks due mainly to its high access time. Also for non-NCQ motherboards, an acoustical management circuit is engaged and the acess time is 15.5ms, whereas on NCQ boards, the acess time is 13-13.3ms. There are a lot of posts regarding "Delayed write failure" regarding mainly their external 7200.8 (aparently firmware issues).

Although the Seagate has a higher STR than the 7K400, does that really impact on real life performance, as this is sequential read/write access for such STR and wouldn't think it represents the real life fragmented data storage.

Confusion has set in based on the conflicting reviews and I have no idea now.

What do you all think?

Thanks for the prompt reply, much appreciated.

With regards to non-video editing applications, would the Seagate be a less preferable drive compared to the 7K400 Hitachi due to its higher access times?

Also if a large video file is itself framgmented on the drive rather than sequentially written (uncompressed AVI), would the higher access time of the Seagate result in a longer overall processing time despite higher STR compared to the 7K400?

Do you recommend waiting for other implementations of large capacity drives from other manufacturers such as WD, or is the Seagate/Hitachi a good all rounded solution in your opinion?

Thanks once again.

The difference at the end of the day in access time will be less than few second... And that is if you are not disturbed or anything, because the computer will still end up waiting for you anyway .. Why such worry about 4ms... I rather go with the warranty... that is calculated in years...

OMG....LOL.. such a worry for few seconds that would have happen anyway ..

<font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>

OK. Thank-you all for your contributions.