braindog

500GB Drives: Seagate 7200.9 vs Hitachi 7K500

Recommended Posts

Which should I go with? I've scoured the net for every single review and forum posting trying to figure out which drive to buy. I'm planning to buy 8 for a RAID setup. It seems the Hitachi has the performance edge, based on the review here on this site. The Seagate, however, has the 5 year warranty. I will be photoshopping large files mostly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the Seagate 7200.9 is available for about $20-30 less than the Hitachi. It has a 5 year warranty, but I've read some reviews that say it's noisier and runs hotter than the Hitachi.

One review shows the Seagate as the performance leader.

http://www.bigbruin.com/reviews05/review.p...ate500gb&file=1

While the other shows the Hitachi in the lead:

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2005...50KLA360_1.html

What's the verdict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that the Seagate 7200.9 is available for about $20-30 less than the Hitachi. It has a 5 year warranty, but I've read some reviews that say it's noisier and runs hotter than the Hitachi.

One review shows the Seagate as the performance leader.

http://www.bigbruin.com/reviews05/review.p...ate500gb&file=1

While the other shows the Hitachi in the lead:

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2005...50KLA360_1.html

What's the verdict?

mmm.... Seagate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bruin review was a typical no-brainer. "Here we have a STR benchmark #1. It looks like Seagate rocks. Here we have STR benchmark #2. Yeah, that confirms it: it rocks. Let't be certain: next, STR benchmark #3!"

For performance comparison, I'd trust SR's review instead, as they benchmarked actual performance in some scenarios. 7K500 is significantly better performing in many typical use environments.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2005...A360_office.png

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2005...360_highend.png

The longer warranty of course is a plus for Seagate. If the Seagate weren't cheaper (at least where you live), it would be even harder to decide between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
The Big Bruin review was a typical no-brainer. "Here we have a STR benchmark #1. It looks like Seagate rocks. Here we have STR benchmark #2. Yeah, that confirms it: it rocks. Let't be certain: next, STR benchmark #3!"

/salute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitachi for single/home PC

Seagate for fileserver

Seagate was better in multiuser tests when queue depths were 8 or more. Hitachi was faster with queue depts 1, 2 and 4. That means if the fileserver was light duty (only a couple of people accessing it simultaneously) the pattern is close enough to desktop environment and 7K500 performs well. When queue depths increase, Seagate's more aggressive command queuing starts to make positive effect (typically NCQ/TCQ only decreases desktop performance [possibly with the exception of DM10 / MaXLine III]).

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2005...360_iometer.png

With that kind of an array, you probably have staggered spin-up? It's worth noticing, these 5-platter Hitachi monsters have supernaturally low power consumption on startup. (The smallest startup power measured so far by SR, yet the greatest number of platters reviewed on Testbed4. Other review sites on the Net even suggests 7K400 consumes less power on startup than 7K250. [7K400 and 7K500 are almost identical in power consumption.])

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2005...KLA360_peak.png

These Hitachi monsters take quite a while to spin-up though. I'd guesstimate it to be around 20 seconds. BIOS should wait at least this time before timing out. I could measure it if I happen to find my stopwatch. My wrist watch doesn't even have a hand for seconds. (It once had a hand for seconds, but it ceased working. Minutes and hours continued to work normally so I removed the one used to display seconds. I spend hundreds of euros on computer equipment, yet have no interest in investing 10 euros for a cheap watch.)

So, Hitachi:

has better performance (in your way of use)

requires less current draw on startup (requires less pricey PSU)

Seagate:

costs less (where you are located)

longer warranty (global)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not easy, because I'am planning too to buy three of these monsters. Can't decide :) because with Hitachi you must set the standard settings to SATA II if you want to using this mode... anyone know if this is correct?

Thanks ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing in a thought here. What about the Western Digital WD4000YR? It has time-limited error recovery which helps with drive fallout, 16 meg buffers, is designed for 24/7 operation at 100% duty, AND has a 5 year warranty. It has performance specs that are pretty close to the Hitachi 500 in many areas as well. I sound like an advertisement, but those are all pretty nice features for a raid setup. It is a 400 gig disk however, but it's much more affordable. Newegg has them for $210 after a $20 mail in rebate.

Edited by ace101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own the WD4000KD which is basically the same exact drive as the WD4000YR only it has the 3 year warranty instead of 5 year warranty (this is because of the way they "burn the drives in 8 hour burn in for the KD and 24 hour burn in for theYR), doesn't have TLER which is only worthwhile if you are using them in RAID--using the drive in any other configuration doesn't have the feature in use, and no NCQ which I think is up fpr debate because some sites say it does and other sites include WD says it doesn't. I will verify.

Other than that, I a very happy with my purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
I own the WD4000KD which is basically the same exact drive... and no NCQ which I think is up fpr debate because some sites say it does and other sites include WD says it doesn't. I will verify.

If the WD4000KD and WD4000YR differ with the latter having NCQ and the former not, then they are not the same drive.

But... they ARE the same drive. The WD4000KD has NCQ... this is so clear that the issue should not be up for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own the WD4000KD which is basically the same exact drive... and no NCQ which I think is up fpr debate because some sites say it does and other sites include WD says it doesn't. I will verify.

If the WD4000KD and WD4000YR differ with the latter having NCQ and the former not, then they are not the same drive.

But... they ARE the same drive. The WD4000KD has NCQ... this is so clear that the issue should not be up for debate.

I was just going by what I read on WD's site and the reviews of the drive from other websites. Wasn't trying to start a debate. I was just unsure. Thanks for clearing it up.

Does this drive suffer a huge performance hit by enabling NCQ? Right now I am not using NCQ on the controller.

Edited by Burner27

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