Eugene

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9

41 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

217270[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice... gaming performance looks good.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

217329[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 = 2MB

8 = 8MB

6 = 16MB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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