The application benchmark PCMark Vantage reveals a clear pattern: Seagate’s Barracuda 7200.12 came out on top in the tests that measure speed.
could have said, no1 win. basically each brand has its own advantage. nice article by the way. ^.^ i'm first
Is it just me, or have their been quite a few comparisions of these +500GB drives as of late? There don't seem to be huge changed in the Hard Drive market from you're last big comparison.I would have hoped for a DDR3 or Budget i7 roundup.
I like my PC fast so I like my HDD to be fast enough to run app. and for storage I'm sure I will go for larges capacity. so my PC surely have 2 or more HDD (int and ext.)
just reading the section on noise levels, 50 db sounds an awful lot for activity. what are the choices for someone who wants a silent machine?has the new 12 successfully avoided the disaster that was the 11 ?
is the seagate missing from the comparison table on page 5 or is I am missing something??
i love western digital. the 2tb is not really worth considered the price is almos trice the 1tb.
Good writeup...may need to order up some caviar to reduce 3 of my internal HD's to one low power one. I'm sure that'd make a power difference. I have an issue with your bar graphs though -- it'd help chart comparisons if you kept the sequence of the drives ordered by name, instead of ordered by performance on the benchmark. That's the point of bar graphs: even if two things aren't close to each other, you can tell which one is better regardless of order because of the size of the bar.And while I'm stating grievances -- the comment browser is terribly broken. First "page" displays fine but if I go to a subsequent one, they get all jumbled and overlay one another or disappear into an unreadable mess. Using WinXP SP2, and IE6 (work won't let me use anything else)
@chrone "i love western digital. the 2tb is not really worth considered the price is almos trice the 1tb."Are you retarded or are you just math-challenged? If the 2 TB is ALMOST twice the price of the 1 TB, that means its cost per GB is LOWER. So the 1 TB is more expensive per GB. Therefore, the 2 TB is a better value.
Hey Wotan31, I think Chrone meant "Thrice" not "Twice" (ie. The WD 2TB drive costs $299.99 on newegg vs 99.99 for the 1TB) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] rder=PRICEBut neiroatopelcc is right. Sometimes you just need the higher capacity in a single drive.
I agree with snarfies. Reliability comes before everything else in a hard drive. Seagate have typically been the most reliable manufacturer for many years now (I get to see hundreds of drives and Seagate reliability has been fantastic for many years now). However, the firmware issue with their 7200.11 drives has been handled in disgraceful fashion by Seagate. Fortunately, I became aware of this problem during the early stages of its knowledge and managed to avoid ever buying one of these "Boat Anchors".I would be very interested to know if Seagate has done anything to earn our future trust in their products....
I can tell you that the 7200.12 does not have the same issues that the 7200.11 does, they are totally updated code bases and have different SOC's that mitigate many of the problems seen in the 7200.11 series. MANY MANY bugs that were in the 7200.11 series have also been stomped out in the 7200.12 series, and the next series after it will be even better. The 7200.11 drives were the first ones released with a new code base, and as usual, have the most bugs (not all of them, the smaller capacity ones are based on an older very robust code base, however the new code base has the potential to significantly improve performance as you're starting to see with the 7200.12's).But I've already said too much....