Hitachi Travelstar Z5K500 Review Discussion
Posted 19 June 2011 - 09:55 AM
Twitter - @StorageReview
Posted 20 June 2011 - 03:40 PM
Edited by danwat1234, 21 June 2011 - 02:42 AM.
Posted 20 June 2011 - 04:48 PM
Posted 21 June 2011 - 09:46 AM
Twitter - @StorageReview
Posted 23 June 2011 - 05:59 AM
If this is correct then the question is not really "Would we accept larger CE products to accomodate 9.5mm drives for the increased performance?" but rather "How are we going to make the 500 GB 2.5" platter designs perform normally, be it 1, 2 or 3 platters?". Teach the write heads some new tricks and "she'll be alright".
Another interesting question would be: "What about HDDs which deliberately push the storage density so far that write performance suffers?" Would we still buy them as large data graves? For external USB 2.0 enclosures the performance of the Z5K500 would certainly be enough. And 1.5 TB in 2.5" external.. who wouldn't call that sweet
Posted 24 June 2011 - 04:27 PM
so I anticipate that the low write performance of this drive may be fixed with a firmware tweak and/or a future hardware revision, because there is no way that we are facing a write performance hit now, if we can go to a 100x higher areal density in the future..
@SR, have you checked the SMART data on the drive? Any errors with writing to the drive?
Posted 26 June 2011 - 05:47 AM
Posted 02 July 2012 - 06:46 AM
Edited by bmanau, 02 July 2012 - 06:47 AM.
Posted 04 December 2013 - 03:00 PM
I can confirm what bmanau has written. I've bought the drive recently and it is much faster at writes than it is stated in the review. One possibility is that the partitions where not aligned properly for 4K AF sectors? If you have read the review and are afraid of choosing this disk, fear not - it performs well in writes.
Posted 24 February 2014 - 09:12 AM
In my opinion you should redo this review http://www.storagere...hts545050a7e380
I have recently tested 9 pcs., all sealed brand new, of the Z5K500 HTS545050A7E380 and I was surprised to see that 2 of the 9 brand new drives behaved very differently. The other 7 had simmilar sequential write performance like the read performance around the 100MB/s.
But two oft them had inconsistent read performance over the whole platter surface, and one of the two had very disappointing results in the write performance, similar to the results of the drive in the review.
You should use the HDtune Benchmark feature to see what the problem actual is. Because the SMART feature is not reporting an error, but the performance is signaling that the two of the 9 drives I tested have issues in read/ write performance. I think the Drive that was subject to the review was suffering from the same problem, and it seems, a pretty big number of drives does it. Maybe they are badly produces or got damaged doe to bad handling (they seem to be very sensitive and it is even mentioned in the product description how they can be hold with the fingers )
If i discover how this forum works, and there is interest for it, I will attach the print screens that I have done to the regular well working drives, and the abnormal ones.
The editor of the review should at least do a mention on the article.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users