Comparison Table And Conclusion
| Manufacturer | Hitachi | Hitachi | Hitachi |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Deskstar 7K1000 | Deskstar 7K1000.B | Deskstar 7K1000.C |
| Model Number | HDS722020ALA330 | HDT721010SLA360 | HDS721010CLA332 |
| Form Factor | 3.5" | 3.5" | 3.5" |
| Capacity | 1,000GB | 1,000GB | 1,000GB |
| Spindle Speed | 7,200 RPM | 7,200 RPM | 7,200 RPM |
| Other Capacities | 750GB | 160, 250, 320, 500, 640, 750GB | 160, 250, 320, 500, 640, 750GB |
| Platters | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Cache | 32MB | 16MB | 32MB |
| NCQ | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Interface | SATA 3 Gb/s | SATA 3 Gb/s | SATA 3 Gb/s |
| Operating Temperature | 5-60°C | 0-60°C | 0-60°C |
| Specified Idle Power | 8.4W | 5.2W | 4.4W |
| Measured Idle Power | 8.7W | 6.2W | 4.6W |
| Operating Shock (2 ms, read) | 70 G | 70 G | 70 G |
| Warranty | 3 years | 3 years | 3 years |
Conclusion
A few results in this analysis were surprising. The fact that idle noise doesn’t have to be lower if there are fewer rotating platters is interesting. So is the fact that PCMark Vantage show application performance not necessarily increasing just because of much higher throughput. The Deskstar 7K1000.C is a very efficient and fast hard drive that beats the older 7K1000.B and initial 7K1000 in most tests. However, the C doesn't necessarily outperform competitors from Samsung, Seagate, and WD. Please check our updated Desktop Hard Drive Charts for more details and comparisons.
In general, the Deskstar 7K1000.C provides improved throughput, lower power consumption, and better efficiency than its predecessors; this is not necessarily surprising and is, in fact, expected. Given the incremental results here, though, we see the compromises that Hitachi accepted when designing its hard drive. A low platter count may drop costs, but it's not always favorable from a performance standpoint. While throughput increases, access times typically suffer a bit. This may also have an impact on application benchmarks, such as PCMark Vantage, in which there are a few test runs the 7K1000.C doesn’t win.
In the end, it seems that the segmentation of the hard drive market does make sense, as it is increasingly difficult for a hard drive manufacturer to deliver a silver bullet. Performance and efficiency remain very important, but none of the current hard drives manages to dominate in all aspects. Hitachi’s latest Deskstar 7K1000.C delivers timely performance and high efficiency for the mainstream. No more, no less.
- Storage,
- Business Storage,
- Hitachi,
- 1tb ,
- hdd
Latest Internal Storage News
Latest Internal Storage reviews
- 05/16 – Intel SSD 330 Review: 60, 120, And 180 GB Models Benchmarked
- 05/11 – Do-It-Yourself: Upgrading Apple's 27" iMac With An SSD
- 05/01 – Marvell-Based SSDs From Corsair, Crucial, OCZ, And Plextor:...
- 04/26 – Best SSDs For The Money: April 2012
- 04/25 – Hitachi's 4 TB Hard Drives Take On The 3 TB Competition
So fewer platters = less energy and higher transfer rates and higher latency.
One could guess that with elementary physics. In fact, it is obvious this should be the case. Way to earn your money, asshat.
Nice article, I'm tempting to buy a pair of this hard disk.
It's true that high density equals high failure ratio? It is too risky use these disk (with high density) to hold data compared with old disk?
(I have two 500GB HDs from ~2006 and still they are working flawless right now)
You write that fewer platters yield better performance. I can certainly see why that would lower cost. But given that each surface has its own r/w head, shouldn't drive manufacturers be able to use the platters in parallel, sort of like RAID 0, to boost performance? Is this already done to some degree (maybe the two surfaces work in parallel), or is there some reason beyond controller cost and lack of market demand preventing this.
Perhaps it should have been written that "for the same capacity (GB) fewer platters yield better performance." This would be because the data density (bits per sector/track) would be higher. "Smaller" bits take less time to read - with newer generation disk heads.
There are also huge differences in capacity between generations of disk RW heads and newer heads tend to used with disks that have fewer platters, at least initially.
Some RAID controllers do exactly as you say. The theory is that if the data is stored on 'cylinders' (same sector different platter) the disk arm will need to move less to transfer the data, saving time.
This is classic main-frame disk array architecture, now easily available on high-end PC disks, some SAN's and some raid controllers. The more disk heads the faster the performance with these arrays.
7200rpm 1TB drives are best suited for nearline storage or worktation usage if put into RAID array, where performance at shallow depth queue is more essential and is not heavily loaded 24/7. So the conclusion of this article makes sense, it's about $/GB while still maintaining 7200rpm needed for decent IOps (where 5400rpm is suited for backup arrays) and in this case highest possible density platter is needed.
Article provides good data for historical references.
Article provides good data for historical references.
It does. =)
Now, how about another comparison when they release a single platter 1TB 7200RPM 3.5" HDD?
I'm going to stick with my 1TB Samsung and 500GB 7200x10's for now, but Hitachi, you certainly do have me considering you for my next big purchase.