Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Results: Sequential Read And Write Performance, And Interface Bandwidth

Seagate Laptop Ultrathin HDD Review: 500 GB In 5 mm Of Space
By , Achim Roos

Our sequential read and write benchmarks put Seagate's Laptop Ultrathin HDD at 84.2 and 82.8 MB/s, respectively. This is actually quite decent performance compared to other 5400 RPM drives, earning it a place in the middle of the pack.

Seagate's performance isn't even close to enough for a competitive shot at the much faster HGST Travelstar 7K1000, which spins at 7200 RPM and hits 133.2 MB/s, though.

Seagate's Laptop Ultrathin HDD makes the best use of its 6Gb/s interface, taking first place in this measure of performance from the data cache across the SATA link. It’s followed closely by Hitachi's Travelstar 5K1000 in second place and the HGST Travelstar 7K1000 in third.

Display all 33 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 29 Hide
    razor512 , July 31, 2013 9:34 PM
    For the hard drive being benchmarked, is it possible for tomshardware to color the text to make them easier to find in the list?

    for example http://i.imgur.com/VXwTs6y.jpg

    it only takes about 3 seconds to do (even faster if you are in the process of making the chart and not changing colors in post)
Other Comments
  • 9 Hide
    nevilence , July 31, 2013 9:29 PM
    makes ya wonder how small this format can go. impressive.
  • 29 Hide
    razor512 , July 31, 2013 9:34 PM
    For the hard drive being benchmarked, is it possible for tomshardware to color the text to make them easier to find in the list?

    for example http://i.imgur.com/VXwTs6y.jpg

    it only takes about 3 seconds to do (even faster if you are in the process of making the chart and not changing colors in post)
  • 5 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , July 31, 2013 10:07 PM
    Quote:
    Its main selling point is the fact that it's only 5 mm thick, instead of the 9.5"

    Think you meant 9.5mm there.

    At least it's not got proprietary connectors like the WD 5mm ones do. Think you need to add one of those to the benchmarks though - it's Seagate's biggest competition.
  • -4 Hide
    slomo4sho , July 31, 2013 11:04 PM
    This would be a good choice for a mITX build when you want budget storage to complement a SSD.
  • 1 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , July 31, 2013 11:28 PM
    Not really; it'll cost significantly more per GB than a 9.5mm drive, but all the bays are fine with the thicker drives.
  • -3 Hide
    slomo4sho , July 31, 2013 11:54 PM
    Quote:
    Not really; it'll cost significantly more per GB than a 9.5mm drive, but all the bays are fine with the thicker drives.


    Regular thickness drives are $60-80 and this one is mentioned to be under $100 with no price given for the consumer market. I wouldn't mind paying a small premium for a drive that utilizes 53% of the area of a 9.5mm drive.
  • 6 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , August 1, 2013 1:07 AM
    The thing is there's nothing you can do with the extra space; it's a couple of millimeters in the middle of an HDD cage
  • -6 Hide
    XngXtuHl , August 1, 2013 1:11 AM
    No point in 5 mm HDD, any laptop can install regular 9 mm HDD
    More expensive, more slower
  • 6 Hide
    Flying-Q , August 1, 2013 1:12 AM
    Please Tom's, get rid of the new format for pictures having the caption as an alpha-blended banner overlapping the bottom of the picture. This article's second picture, which attempts to illustrate the thinness of the new drive, is ruined by the new captioning method. Use some intelligence and put the caption UNDER the picture. This is the way that has worked for decades in both print and online. Why change something that works for a system that fails?
  • 4 Hide
    Someone Somewhere , August 1, 2013 1:14 AM
    Quote:
    No point in 5 mm HDD, any laptop can install regular 9 mm HDD
    More expensive, more slower


    Nope, ultrabooks often have 7mm slots or none, and soon I'd expect that to be 5mm.
  • 4 Hide
    m32 , August 1, 2013 3:39 AM
    XngXtuHl, this HD is really about fitting in the 'ultra-book' form factor.
  • 1 Hide
    slomo4sho , August 1, 2013 6:16 AM
    Quote:
    The thing is there's nothing you can do with the extra space; it's a couple of millimeters in the middle of an HDD cage


    Who said anything about a HDD cage?
  • 0 Hide
    razor512 , August 1, 2013 8:01 AM
    There is one interesting use that I can think of. A new laptop, in place of the DVD drive, you can have 2 slots for ultra thin hard drives in addition to a standard SSD.

    Allowing for a lot of extra storage, or RAID 1 bulk storage since it is common place for laptops to use SSD's now but it is also well known that you should always backup your important data and keep bulk data off of the SSD. (SSD= OS and applications only)
  • 0 Hide
    Tuishimi , August 1, 2013 8:19 AM
    @someone somewhere

    Remember the old wash tub disk drive disk packs? Even they were only like 6" tall tho'. :) 
  • 0 Hide
    jaber2 , August 1, 2013 9:06 AM
    Why not go with SSD? stop using these mechanical drives already, when I shop for monitor I can't find crt anymore, lets make it the same.
  • -1 Hide
    lamorpa , August 1, 2013 9:34 AM
    jaber2 said, "Why not go with SSD? stop using these mechanical drives already, when I shop for monitor I can't find crt anymore, lets make it the same."

    You can get an answer to your question in an article on this subject - the article on this page (if you read it)
  • 0 Hide
    Leamon , August 1, 2013 10:17 AM
    This technology should be used with iPod classics! They're so unpopular because the only ones who buy one are people with alot of music and videos, and the highest capacity they offer is 160Gb. That's not very much for movie files, especially HD/ Bluray ones. Apple might be better off adopting technology like this!
  • 0 Hide
    Onus , August 1, 2013 10:55 AM
    I'd have to wonder about the durability of a drive like this, especially in a tablet or other thin form factor that might flex, even a little.
  • 0 Hide
    danwat1234 , August 1, 2013 12:29 PM
    Quote:
    This technology should be used with iPod classics! They're so unpopular because the only ones who buy one are people with alot of music and videos, and the highest capacity they offer is 160Gb. That's not very much for movie files, especially HD/ Bluray ones. Apple might be better off adopting technology like this!

    The current hard drive based ipods use 1.8" 1 platter drives, not sure of the thickness, 7mm?
    so they'd have to have a larger chassis in length/width but not as much thickness.
    With current platter densities, Apple could put in a 250GB 1.8" 1 platter drive in their ipods
  • 0 Hide
    restrain_oligopolies , August 2, 2013 5:59 AM
    Reliability?
    I'm more interested in reliability than speed.
    One would suspect 1 platter to be more reliable than 2, 3, or 4 platters.
    The article doesn't mention how many heads, 1 or 2.
    Again, I suspect 1 head more reliable than 2 heads.
    Unfortunately, Tomshardware can't test 5 year reliability, but there might be data somewhere on improved reliability of 1 platter and of 1 head.
Display more comments