tempus

Hitachi 7K250 160gig question.....

Recommended Posts

I wish to buy a 7K250 Hitachi 160 gig drive and there are two models available with SATA, one with 1 disk and 2 heads and the other with 3 disks and 6 heads. Why would they build this drive in these different configurations abd which one is the faster drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish to buy a 7K250 Hitachi 160 gig drive and there are two models available with SATA, one with 1 disk and 2 heads and the other with 3 disks and 6 heads. Why would they build this drive in these different configurations abd which one is the faster drive?

206584[/snapback]

Whatta... :o

As far as I know:

7K250 (83GB/platter technology):

1 platter, 1 head - 40GB

1 platter, 2 heads - 80GB

2 platters, 3 heads - 120GB

2 platters, 4 heads - 160GB

3 platters, 6 heads - 250GB

(plus there is 200GB, which is not widely available. I don't know if it has 3 platters and 5 heads or 6 with short-stroking...)

T7K250 (125GB/platter technology):

2 platters, 3 heads - 160GB

2 platters, 4 heads - 250GB

There is no 160GB drive with "1 disk and 2 heads". That would require 160GB/platter and that way more that is available from any manufacturer!

Also there is no 160GB with "3 disks and 6 heads" version of 7K250. 3 platter 7K250 have 250GB (or 200GB) of capacity.

Then there's 60GB/platter legacy drives: IBM/Hitachi 180GXP which has 180GB with it's 3 disks and 6 heads variant but you're talking about 7K250 (or T7K250)... Am I correct?

Currently available 7K250 and T7K250 drives of 160GB capacity BOTH have 2 platters (not 1, not 3). The difference is, T7K250 has 3 heads while 7K250 has 4 heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to answer to some questions...

Why would they build this drive in these different configurations

206584[/snapback]

T7K250 will be replacing 7K250. 7K250 is an older model.
abd which one is the faster drive?

206584[/snapback]

T7K250 definitively. It has higher data density (thus higher sequential transfer rates), practically the same access time, SATA2 (7K250 has SATA1 implemented with ATA-SATA converter chip) and NCQ, slightly lower power consumption, etc.

7K250 isn't bad either back when it came out it was the best performing desktop drive. It's still fast but not fastest anymore. Today, with 16MB Maxtors available, competiotion is much harder. Even though 7K250 is "OK", T7K250 is better in most ways.

Only reasons why one could choose 7K250 over T7K250 are:

- proven technology, known-to-be-good reliability

- matured technology, drive's exceed their own specs quite a bit

- if T7K250 is not available where one lives

- price (not always cheaper, older model might even cost more!)

- ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the specs from the computer store website. I wonder why they would publish incorrect specs for this drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they're morons.  Unfortunately, not uncommon.

206724[/snapback]

I think "morons" is a bit of a strong word. Most times they're just uneducated or ignorant. :lol:

Edited by qasdfdsaq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they weren't morons, they'd be educated and knowledgeable....

206947[/snapback]

But not every idiot or unintelligent person is necessarily a moron though, are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T7K250 definitively. It has higher data density (thus higher sequential transfer rates), practically the same access time, SATA2 (7K250 has SATA1 implemented with ATA-SATA converter chip) and NCQ, slightly lower power consumption, etc.

But doesn't the T7K250 have only 2MB cache? At least according to my store. Wouldn't that take off a lot of its performance? I also heard that 16MB doesn't do much over 8MB. True or false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T7K250 definitively. It has higher data density (thus higher sequential transfer rates), practically the same access time, SATA2 (7K250 has SATA1 implemented with ATA-SATA converter chip) and NCQ, slightly lower power consumption, etc.

But doesn't the T7K250 have only 2MB cache? At least according to my store. Wouldn't that take off a lot of its performance? I also heard that 16MB doesn't do much over 8MB. True or false?

207033[/snapback]

Both false. The T7K250 is an 8mb cache only drive - it's not availible in any other cache amount. The "normal" 7K250 is availible in both 2mb and 8mb cache variants, although 2mb is only availible on the smaller, non-SATA drives.

16mb cache can be a major advantage over 8mb, and it can not. It depends heavily on usage pattern and optimisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the store must be wrong then.

I suppose for gaming 16MB would be beneficial. My budget is tight on this new comp I'm building and am just not sure if I should buy a cheaper drive now and get a faster one in the future instead, or buy a 16MB one already now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But doesn't the T7K250 have only 2MB cache?

207033[/snapback]

The specs mention both 2 and 8 meg variants, but personally I haven't seen anything but the 8 meg one for sale (plus the manual only gives model numbers indicating 8 megs of cache). A HDT722516DLA380 will be a drive with 8 megs of cache. I don't really think 16 megs would be of enormous benefit right now, it always takes a while before the firmware can efficiently use a bigger cache. Additionally, Hitachi drives have been fairly trouble-free since the 180GXP (maybe thanks to their decent packaging that some other manufacturers have decided to skimp on), while Maxtor's DM+9 didn't have such a great track record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: And do check the performance database, where you'll find the MaxLine III with its 8 megs of cache sandwiched between the 7K250 and 7K400 (i.e. last-gen drives) with minimal differences in the Gaming Drivemark. The T7K250 should be a bit faster still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But doesn't the T7K250 have only 2MB cache?

207033[/snapback]

The specs mention both 2 and 8 meg variants, but personally I haven't seen anything but the 8 meg one for sale (plus the manual only gives model numbers indicating 8 megs of cache). A HDT722516DLA380 will be a drive with 8 megs of cache. I don't really think 16 megs would be of enormous benefit right now, it always takes a while before the firmware can efficiently use a bigger cache. Additionally, Hitachi drives have been fairly trouble-free since the 180GXP (maybe thanks to their decent packaging that some other manufacturers have decided to skimp on), while Maxtor's DM+9 didn't have such a great track record.

207071[/snapback]

The specs only mention an 8mb cache version, there is no 2mb cache version.

IMO Hitachi/IBM drives have been trouble free since the 60GXP. Also, mine have all been packed in your typical OEM hard drive box, with no Hitachi/IBM packaging on it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO Hitachi/IBM drives have been trouble free since the 60GXP. Also, mine have all been packed in your typical OEM hard drive box, with no Hitachi/IBM packaging on it at all.

207076[/snapback]

IMHO, the 120GXP was the first OK series (but not outstanding either), from the 180GXP on they got really good. My T7K250 came in what you probably mean by "typical OEM hard drive box" (such a transparent shock-absorbing box); some manufacturers' drives can, however, be bought in an antistatic bag only! These better be bought from a dealer who knows how to package hard drives properly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant antistatic bag only. The drive was then packaged into a foam-padded shipping box by the dealer. However, admittedly, a friend of mine had a 60GXP go bad with a few bad sectors but mine survived till I had it replaced. I've had a total of zero failures with all my 180GXP's and 7K250's though, so I agree that Hitachi have fixed their reliability problems.

However, one must add that pretty much every manufacturer has at some point made a bad batch of drives, but it always seems to be IBM's 75GXP that seems to be mentioned, possibly cause that was the most recent scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had two 60GXP (think that's the model number) running RAID0, but one of the drives got a crapload of readerrors after 2.5-3 years of use and later died. One of them is still working fine though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now