Jump to content


Photo

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Eugene

Eugene

    Administrator

  • Member
  • 1,057 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 10:01 AM

Seagate's new Barracuda 7200.9 essentially rolls the older 7200.8 and 7200.7 lines into one all-encompassing family that delivers a wide range of capacities available in both the PATA and SATA interfaces. Bumping its design to four platters, Seagate has delivered 500 of capacity. StorageReview puts the firm's highly-anticipated flagship unit to the test and stacks it up agains the competition.

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 Review

#2 wattly

wattly

    Member

  • Member
  • 69 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 10:25 AM

Cool review, though I think you got the date wrong on the main page :)

#3 Eugene

Eugene

    Administrator

  • Member
  • 1,057 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 10:31 AM

What, we didn't turn the clocks forward one day yesterday? :P

Seriously, the review was scheduled for tomorrow but we needed to compress the editorial schedule a bit because we're so backlogged...

#4 wattly

wattly

    Member

  • Member
  • 69 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 02:37 PM

Makes sense, it just threw me off for a few minutes (I was still dealing with the DST time change).

#5 whiic

whiic

    hauptsturmführer

  • Member
  • 921 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 06:41 PM

160GB version of 7200.9 is something I'd like to see reviewed. 160GB/platter is a huge leap forward in data density. While it doesn't necessarily make the drive fast in real world (as 160GB version is equipped with 2MB and 8MB caches), that's 160GB on one platter => potentially less noise and less heat compared to any other drive currently available with the same capacity. But only potentially: Seagate drives have not been the most economic in terms of "watts/platter". To compare one platter Seagate to two platter competitors requires (at least) reviewing the Seagate... that's because Seagate don't publish detailed datasheets with different current draw and noise specs for each platter configuration (while some other manufacturers do). All 7200.7 Seagates from 40GB to 300GB have the same power draw (7.2W) and the same acoustic noise (idle 2.5 bels) according to their datasheet.

Reviewing only flagships don't necessarily find the fastest drives amongst a generation of HDD from manufacturer X as it seems to became a trend that flagships have lower data densities. For example, who knows whether T7K250 is faster than 7K500 if no-one bothers to make a decent review of them both.
Antec 1200 | HX520W | Commando | Q6600 G0 @ 3.15GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 8GB of RAM | HD 4670 (passive)
7 TB of storage: 1x 1TB 1st gen GP, 1x 1TB 2nd gen GP, 1x 2TB 3rd gen GP, 1x 7200rpm F1, 2x 5400rpm F2 EcoGreen

#6 sechs

sechs

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 30 October 2005 - 07:40 PM

Reviewing only flagships don't necessarily find the fastest drives amongst a generation of HDD from manufacturer X as it seems to became a trend that flagships have lower data densities. For example, who knows whether T7K250 is faster than 7K500 if no-one bothers to make a decent review of them both.

View Post


I agree.

Since Seagate has decided to take a page from Western Digital's book and give drives with different specifications the same family name, it would be useful to know how different models fare.

#7 FaaR

FaaR

    Member

  • Member
  • 48 posts

Posted 31 October 2005 - 01:33 AM

While I understand you may have little or no control over exactly which ads are displayed on the site Eugene, I still wanted to inform you that on the conclusions page there was a Google ad for therightspamsolution.com (and for heavens sake don't anybody go there now so they get referrals from storagereview in their server logs!)

I wonder what keyword triggered a spam site being advertised here. Sort of having men's magazines on a girlscout website IMO. :)

Anyway, thanx for the review, GOOD to see this site starting to live again! And when do we see Hitachi's newest drives reviewed, the K7400 is kind of old isn't it? :)

#8 Olaf van der Spek

Olaf van der Spek

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,958 posts

Posted 31 October 2005 - 04:04 AM

Would it be possible to include numbers in the IOmeter graphs (like a normal table below the grap as AnandTech sometimes does)?
I'm having some trouble finding out which line is which drive.

#9 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,574 posts

Posted 31 October 2005 - 01:40 PM

Nice... gaming performance looks good.

Yes, a 7200.9 with 160GB/platter review would be very interesting.

#10 steve8

steve8

    Member

  • Member
  • 44 posts

Posted 31 October 2005 - 09:40 PM

how about 7800.9 160GB unit which uses a single 160GB platter. ? how does the performance/ noise/power etc compare?
i wouldnt be surprised if the unit was sizably better in performance and noise.


anyway how about the T7k250?... the choice of competition seems odd.

#11 Will Rickards

Will Rickards

Posted 31 October 2005 - 10:25 PM

Could you possibly change the color of the bar for the drive being tested.
It is hard to quickly tell how the drive did in comparison.

#12 Eugene

Eugene

    Administrator

  • Member
  • 1,057 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 05:20 PM

Could you possibly change the color of the bar for the drive being tested.
It is hard to quickly tell how the drive did in comparison.

View Post



Alright, added red and yellow to the mix...

#13 Mad hatter

Mad hatter

    Member

  • Member
  • 273 posts

Posted 11 November 2005 - 02:22 PM

Seagate is shipping OEM drives to Apple with SCC disabled, but selling retail drives with it enabled, and it won't work on G5, or on Mac SATA controllers. That has required every drive bought to have to be exchanged for now.

I wish they'd go to using a jumper (is it possible?) to enable/disable SSC. I think you can on WD's Raptor, and there sure were a lot of options for SCSI drive configuration.

The same thing happened with some Hitachi 7K250's earlier this year.

#14 abarsami

abarsami

    Member

  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 30 November 2005 - 07:21 PM

What will be the platter sizes of the 200, 250, 300 gig drives?

Will they all have the same performance and will they run the same temp? I know the 300 has 16 cache.

#15 Guest_888_*

Guest_888_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 November 2005 - 08:07 PM

What will be the platter sizes of the 200, 250, 300 gig drives?


At least we can find the number of platters for 7200.9 series from the model #:

160 GB - ST3160812A(S) = 1 platter (160 GB one; which is probably also used in 120/80/40 GB HDDs)
200 GB - ST3200827A(S) = 2 platters (may be 100 GB platters but may be also cut-off 133, rare if 160)
250 GB - ST3250824A(S) = 2 platters (probably 133 GB ones with small cut-offs, 160 is less probable)
300 GB - ST3300622A(S) = 2 platters (this means really 160 GB ones with small cut-offs)
400 GB - ST3400633A(S) = 3 platters (must be just 133 GB ones)
500 GB - ST3500641A(S) = 4 platters (as we know they are 133 GB ones with small cut-offs, or 125 ?)

Note: This is not an official information, just some figuring out... No guarantee if this is all correct!

#16 Guest_888_*

Guest_888_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 November 2005 - 08:14 PM

...and the cache size is indicated by the digit just preceding the digit of "number of platters":

2 = 2MB
8 = 8MB
6 = 16MB

#17 abarsami

abarsami

    Member

  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 30 November 2005 - 11:19 PM


What will be the platter sizes of the 200, 250, 300 gig drives?


At least we can find the number of platters for 7200.9 series from the model #:

160 GB - ST3160812A(S) = 1 platter (160 GB one; which is probably also used in 120/80/40 GB HDDs)
200 GB - ST3200827A(S) = 2 platters (may be 100 GB platters but may be also cut-off 133, rare if 160)
250 GB - ST3250824A(S) = 2 platters (probably 133 GB ones with small cut-offs, 160 is less probable)
300 GB - ST3300622A(S) = 2 platters (this means really 160 GB ones with small cut-offs)
400 GB - ST3400633A(S) = 3 platters (must be just 133 GB ones)
500 GB - ST3500641A(S) = 4 platters (as we know they are 133 GB ones with small cut-offs, or 125 ?)

Note: This is not an official information, just some figuring out... No guarantee if this is all correct!


If it's correct will the 160gig and 300gig run the coolest and fastest?

Edited by abarsami, 30 November 2005 - 11:19 PM.

#18 lexwalker

lexwalker

    Member

  • Member
  • 433 posts

Posted 30 November 2005 - 11:35 PM

I've been using a new 160GB 7200.9 drive for sometime now (because no more 7200.7 available).. and here are my conclusions:

1. It is much cooler than 7200.7!!

2. It is much quieter than 7200.7!!

Probably because its a single platter one. I'm pretty surprised at the results as well, because I was expecting it to be like 7200.7. As reliability concerns, no conclusions yet as its still new and I have one of drives only (maybe more in the future). Will the 7200.9 surpass 7200.7 in the reliability stake? Time will tell.. B)

#19 abarsami

abarsami

    Member

  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 December 2005 - 12:18 AM

I've been using a new 160GB 7200.9 drive for sometime now (because no more 7200.7 available).. and here are my conclusions:

1. It is much cooler than 7200.7!!

2. It is much quieter than 7200.7!!

Probably because its a single platter one. I'm pretty surprised at the results as well, because I was expecting it to be like 7200.7. As reliability concerns, no conclusions yet as its still new and I have one of drives only (maybe more in the future). Will the 7200.9 surpass 7200.7 in the reliability stake? Time will tell.. B)


Good to here it's running cool. I am thinking of returning my hitachi t7k250 250 gig because of clicking noises. I want to see how the 300 gig 7200.9 compares to the 160 gig 7200.9 before I buy one of them.

But I hope it doesn't take too long for the 300 gig to be released or else I'll just get the 160 gig.

#20 abarsami

abarsami

    Member

  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 December 2005 - 12:59 AM

I've been using a new 160GB 7200.9 drive for sometime now (because no more 7200.7 available).. and here are my conclusions:

1. It is much cooler than 7200.7!!

2. It is much quieter than 7200.7!!

Probably because its a single platter one. I'm pretty surprised at the results as well, because I was expecting it to be like 7200.7. As reliability concerns, no conclusions yet as its still new and I have one of drives only (maybe more in the future). Will the 7200.9 surpass 7200.7 in the reliability stake? Time will tell.. B)


Have you tested to see what the read access speed is with HD Tach ver 3?

#21 blindlemon

blindlemon

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 20 January 2006 - 07:55 PM

Interesting that the review shows the power draw of the 500GB 7200.9 to be only marginally more than the 400GB 7200.8 - as I'm trying to get two of these babies to work in a S1 TiVo and they just refuse to play ball :(

One drive works fine, but combine it with a second (or even a 400GB 7200.8) and the TiVo refuses to boot. The drives don't seem to spin up properly, and even with one drive powered from an external source (PC) the TiVo just reboots after getting to "just a few seconds more...".

However 2x 400GB 7200.8 drives work every time, with no problems at all. Not being an expert in HDD power-draw issues I'm stumped here. Has anybody got any ideas as to what might be going on? I'm not really sure whether an extra 3.6W at startup and 0.5W during seeks is a significant amount in this context.

FWIW the PSU in the TiVo is this one and is rated at 61W total with 2A @ 5V and 3A @ 12V.

Edited by blindlemon, 20 January 2006 - 07:57 PM.

#22 merlin

merlin

    Member

  • Member
  • 8 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 02:04 PM

I've been searching this site and a number of sites for information on whether the 7200.9 300GB really uses 100gb platters or 160gb platters(cutoff to 150). With how long this drive and the 250GB were delayed, I'm really suspecting the latter, however as I've not seen any actual detailed benchmarks, noise tests, or anything else, it seems rather impossible to tell without actually buying it. Does anyone have any official information or detailed tests proving one way or the other whether all the previews of the 7200.9 are wrong and it actually is 2 platters like the model code says?

#23 Glacialis

Glacialis

    Member

  • Member
  • 11 posts

Posted 23 March 2006 - 09:35 AM

Bump to ditto what the above user said. Looking at purchasing the 300gb version and would like some clarifications.

#24 alucard_x

alucard_x

    Member

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 23 March 2006 - 09:55 AM

watch out for this drive. I'm not sure if its only the 300gb (SATA) version, but i received mine from newegg last week, installed it on monday, and it was DOA. had some clicking and chirping noises during format. finally finished the format, i went to copy files to it and the system froze and the harddrive went into a melody of clicking and chirping until i did a hard power off.

If you check the newegg reviews for this 300gb SATA drive, there's many comments about getting DOA drives. It's pretty disappointing. There seems to be two manufacturers, one in China and one in Thailand. When you get the drive it will have a white sticker with black text sealing the ESD bag. This shows where it was made. It seems drives from either regions can be DOA from what i've read in newegg comments. One guy got his drives from China and thought thats why his was DOA, but mine was from Thailand and i had the same issue.

I'm waiting on an advanced replacement from Seagate. They (Indian CSR's, helpful though, and accent not too bad) waived the $25 adv replacement fee, and were going to send me a new drive.. however they don't have any in stock (aren't they the ones making these things??) Of course now newegg has them in stock, so im' not sure what to do.

hopefully my replacement will work fine, but even then.. with the one DOA i got and all these reports of DOA drives, should i really trust my data to last on this thing?

#25 Spod

Spod

    Guru > me > newbie

  • Patron
  • 1,970 posts

Posted 24 March 2006 - 08:07 AM

hopefully my replacement will work fine, but even then.. with the one DOA i got and all these reports of DOA drives, should i really trust my data to last on this thing?


Of course not! That's what regular backups are for. And they'll protect against more than a dead drive.

I'd rather have a DOA drive than have it fail a few months later, when I've got all my data on it. If the new drive you receive isn't DOA, there's a very good chance it escaped the fault or mishandling that kiled the other DOA drives, and it will probably be fine.
If I'm wrong, please tell me why. I'm trying to help, but I'm here to learn, too.
See my profile for PC specs. I do not practise what I preach.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users