Guest Eugene

SR's 250 GB Drive Roundup

Recommended Posts

Marconi (not based in Essex, are you?):

Hard disk speed will affect loading times in games, but after the level is loaded, it makes relatively little difference... as long as you've got enough RAM not to need to hit the pagefile while gaming.

The 74 GB Raptor will be faster than any of these in games, but is only of interest if you don't need 250 GB of storage. And it will typically be up to $20 more expensive.

No, I'm from Israel.

So if my sys. has 512MB of memory the only difference I'll notice between p120 and T7k250 would be in the loading time of the game? That is not too bad if I'm gaining some peace of mind, will that be the case?

Can you estimate time load differences?

Off topic??? WTF. I'm no expert. But you obviously....

All marielaure saying, in another words, is open a topic on that HTPC you thinking of so everyone could focus on that and help you.

Here we are discussing 250GB HDD based on the roundup. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello in this review is stated that the maxtor diamondmax 10 is a sata 1,5 Gbps while the 250 and 300 gb are able to have a 3gbps interface. I know that those speeds are maximum, but that is appliable to the 7200.9 and the hitachi. My question is is the new diamondmax10 really 3gbps (6V300F0)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
Hello in this review is stated that the maxtor diamondmax 10 is a sata 1,5 Gbps while the 250 and 300 gb are able to have a 3gbps interface. I know that those speeds are maximum, but that is appliable to the 7200.9 and the hitachi. My question is is the new diamondmax10 really 3gbps (6V300F0)?

Yes, DiamondMax10 6V...F0 and 6V...E0 models are SATA300MB/s.

Here's a table of Maxtor's DiamondMax and MaXLine 7200rpm drives available today (copy-paste it to Notepad if the lines look skewed):

MaXLine   Pro   SATA2 16 NCQ 1.0 500/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 7H500F0
MaXLine   Pro	ATA  16	 1.0 500/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 7H500R0
MaXLine  +III   SATA2 16 NCQ 1.0 ---/---/---/300/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 7V...F0
MaXLine  +III   SATA  16 NCQ 1.0 ---/---/---/300/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 7L...S0
MaXLine  +III	ATA  16	 1.0 ---/---/---/300/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 7L...R0
MaXLine   +II   SATA   8	 1.0 ---/---/---/---/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 7Y250M0
MaXLine   +II	ATA   8	 1.0 ---/---/---/---/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 7Y250P0
DiamondMax 11   SATA2 16 NCQ	 500/400/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 6H...F0
DiamondMax 11	ATA  16		 500/400/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 6H...R0
DiamondMax 10   SATA2 16 NCQ	 ---/---/320/300/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 6V...F0
DiamondMax 10   SATA2  8 NCQ	 ---/---/---/---/---/200/160/---/080/---/---/--- 6V...E0
DiamondMax 10   SATA  16 NCQ	 ---/---/---/300/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 6B...S0
DiamondMax 10   SATA  16 NCQ	 ---/---/---/300/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 6L...S0
DiamondMax 10   SATA   8 NCQ	 ---/---/---/---/---/200/160/120/080/---/---/--- 6B...M0
DiamondMax 10   SATA   8 NCQ	 ---/---/---/---/---/200/160/120/080/---/---/--- 6L...M0
DiamondMax 10	ATA  16		 ---/---/---/300/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 6B...R0
DiamondMax 10	ATA  16		 ---/---/---/300/250/---/---/---/---/---/---/--- 6L...R0
DiamondMax 10	ATA   8		 ---/---/---/---/---/200/160/---/---/---/---/--- 6B...P0
DiamondMax 10	ATA   8		 ---/---/---/---/---/200/160/120/080/---/---/--- 6L...P0
DiamondMax 10	ATA   2		 ---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/080/---/---/--- 6L080L0
DiamondMax +9   SATA   8		 ---/---/---/---/250/200/160/120/080/060/---/--- 6Y...M0
DiamondMax +9	ATA   8		 ---/---/---/---/250/200/160/120/080/---/---/--- 6Y...P0
DiamondMax +9	ATA   2		 ---/---/---/---/---/---/160/120/080/060/---/--- 6Y...L0
DiamondMax +8	ATA   2		 ---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/---/040/--- 6E040L0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you

I have heard from some user that diamondmax 10 disks are not trully sata II in terms of 3Gb/s, I mean they say that the actual speed of the bus is 150 but maxtor advertises 300 in a misleading advertise. However, I have seen some reviews where the diamondmax 10 with sata II achieve burst speeds of mores than 200 Gb/s so I suppose they are trully 3Gb/s, any idea?

thank you very much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or is it still not possible to add the Hitachi T7K250 to the reliability survey?

At least after the review I would have expected this to work - especially as it seems to be a popular drive.

:(

Edited by ston3y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whiic makes a really excellent point here. in considering both sides of the discussion...

1. It would be good to actually measure the average active/idle usage of systems in key scenarios to be able to offer readers estimates of total relative power usage in those scenarios.

2. For me there would be less value in applying this average approach to temperature measurement though, I really only care about the peaks in temperature. I care about the overall consumption in power usage.

And yup, when reading articles I often read the intro, then conclusion, then the detail regarding the 'reccomended' component..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"1. It would be good to actually measure the average active/idle usage of systems in key scenarios to be able to offer readers estimates of total relative power usage in those scenarios."

I'm not that certain about adding the average value to power consumption. People should have the skills to calculate the average all by themselves. And the average represents only the 50/50 emphasis, but there's probably people that would weigh them 40/60 or 60/40. No reason to add "average" figures into Performance Database.

By point was just that the "Conclusions" part of the review had several (verbal) sentences that could lead people to misinterpret the actual figures.

"2. For me there would be less value in applying this average approach to temperature measurement though, I really only care about the peaks in temperature. I care about the overall consumption in power usage."

Temperature and power usage have a very high, positive correlation, as heat generation (which is positively correlated to temperature) is (almost*) exactly equal to power usage of the drive.

* = If we go into specifics, drives that make much noise, release some of the energy as noise, making them cooler than what power measurements would let us believe. But AFAIK that's less than 1% of power usage, so assuming all the power is turned into heat, is a pretty good approximation.

As for maximum temperature and maximum power usage... the relation isn't that obvious as the drives cast aluminum casing has thermal capacitance and it resists change in temperature. While we see maximum temperature is much more important than average temperature, high maximum power usage doesn't automatically cause high maximum temperatures if the drive isn't pushed to the limits for long enough periods of time. The thermal capacitance of the HDD requires about an hour to build up it's temperature to around 90% of the temperature where it will stabilize, so defragging the drive for 15 minutes will probably make the temperature rise only about half of the maximum theoretical temperature of the drive if it would be defragged from an infinite amount of time.

While the temperature during "normal usage" is very close to idle temperature (as a result of idle power consumption), temperature during 15 minute defrag is probably an average of temperatures between idle and active (because the drive requires it's time to build up heat). Of course defragging over an hour means the maximum temperature is only defined by ambient temperature and active power consumption.

But does defragging take many hours? Yeah... it could. At least full fragmentation (i.e. relocating all data, not just fragmented files) on a 250GB drive will take hours. But would we choose to defragment 250GB worth of data during the hottest of summer days, or make the defragment start during the night?

Because of this, I actually think it's the idle power usage that correlates with maximum temperature, providing one doesn't use the drive in a air conditioned server room, and that defragmenting drives is performed during the colder periods of time. If defragmentation takes about 15 minutes or so, and it's defragmented at 15 o' clock, the maximum temperature is probably close to 50/50 emphasis of idle and active power consumption (thanks to the fact that half a kilogram of metal takes some time to build up heat).

Heat during defragmentation is also related to the software utility used for the job. The bigger the block transfered at a time, the less seeking. Also there's much different in decisions "what should be defragmented" between different utilities. The ones that are thorough, can easily take ten times (or more) longer than the one built-in Windows. Windows' defragmenter can easily defragment most volumes in less than 15 min. (The "quality" of Windows defragmentation isn't that good: while it defragments all defragmented files, it doesn't eliminate all the empty spaces between files. If there's empty spaces, there's a risk that OS starts writing to these empty spaces even when the file isn't small enough to fit there, causing risk of defragmentation in future, after defragging.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for such a valuable review. Because of the marginal increase in price over the smaller drives, these 250 GBs are probably going to be going into a lot of machines (mine for one) and it is great to have the information localized and synthesized. I have several comments and questions but know just enough to get myself into trouble so be kind.

I have done some research on my own in the sense that I was doing a project requiring the reading and writing of gig plus files. What I found was this, some drives were much better at writing large files but cruddy at everyday stuff: booting, swap file, loading programs. I tried 160 GB Seagate and WD drives and they halved my times over my 80 gig Hitachi when writing the big files but for everyday stuff, the little Hitachi whipped the tails off the bigger drives. I ended up using the 80 for my system and left the WD 160 in for the big files (it was slightly faster than the Seagate) and backup. From this I concluded that there might be some drives more suited to the task at hand and wondered how I could determine this from the usual drive performance scores we see in reviews. I have read the description of the Drivemark 2006 tests but I can't get a grasp on what exactly they mean for me.

To that end, I like the "real world" benchmarks presented in drive reviews at another review site. In those tests, they copy 300 1mg files and 1 300mg file and record the times. These are simple tests and seem like a logical way to view the speed of a drive. I would think that a drive that performs well in the 300 1mg files test would be better at everyday tasks. Am I wrong here? I conclude that the game load time tests of this review are similar to the 1 300 mg file tests but not being a gamer, I have no idea. At the same time, writing those big files is a big thing to me but there is no measure for it from what I can see. In other words, these simple copy tests are something that I think quite a few folks would find valuable and shouldn't take a lot of time to perform for a review. As another example, would a simple column for boot time differences be informative or not? If I can find this type of info by interpreting the tests presented in the article, please let me know.

As a follow on I would like to see you do a review of each of the drives paired in a RAID 0 configuration. As each of the drives seems to have different pluses or minuses, I wonder if they are mitigated or magnified when paired. I am thinking of doing a RAID 0 with two of these drives although I am toying with doing the RAID 10. I can't quite get myself to believe that I need to shell out the extra 200 to do the RAID 10. I live with one drive now and understand that probability of failure increases with the RAID 0, but if the drives are pretty reliable and I backup as frequently as I do now, what's the harm relative to what I have now?

The little table of reliabilty results presented by 888 was very insightful (thanks 888). If I want to build the RAID, the Samsungs went much higher on my list as their reliability appears signficantly better than the others. I was thinking of the Maxtor III and that table got me looking elsewhere quickly.

A final comment is on the average wattage. By posting the idle and use power consumption, the individual can estimate their own unique total power usage. I estimate that my hard drive is idle about 80% of the time, and I can just do a weighted average of my wattage consumption using the two numbers: for the Hitachi, (0.8)(6.1) + (0.2)(11.3) = 7.14 watts, which I can then do for the others and compare.

Western Digital Caviar WD2500KS (250 GB SATA) 7.32

Maxtor DiamondMax 10 with NCQ (250 GB SATA) 8.56

Samsung SpinPoint P120 no NCQ (250 GB SATA) 7.9

Maxtor MaXLine III with NCQ (300 GB SATA) 10.22

Hitachi Deskstar T7K250 no NCQ (250 GB SATA) 7.14

Samsung SpinPoint P80 (160 GB SATA) 8.2

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 no NCQ (500 GB SATA) 9.4

The Hitachi just beats out the WD and with the Samsung a near third. The Maxlines and Seagates would be energy hogs in my machine. But between them we are talking about expending the additional energy less than a nightlite consumes. :P Which of course goes to one of the points in the conclusion of the article; they are all good, pick one. (I'm too obsessive to do something that simple! ;) )

Thanks again for the reviews and any help anyone can give me to my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah and the issue of noise is very important to single users. My Hitachi is loud when it writes. The WD and Seagate are virtually silent compared against my rather loud case fan (fixing that issue today). I know you mention in the review that the Hitachi and Maxtor are a little louder than the others so, is there an objective scale you could create to give us an idea of how loud they are when reading/writing?

A suggested scale for a non-idle drive, loudest to quietest; can easily hear over the fans (thrashing machine), can barely hear over the fans (lawn mower outside), cannot hear over the fans (inside a jet airplane), can hear without fans (babbling brook), cannot hear without fans (I would say Nirvana but too many youngins would confuse that with the rock band), or something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that reading and writing 1 GB files (as long as you're not doing something else at the same time) would correlate strongly with STR measurements. The High End banckmarks would also be relevant.

Boot time was dropped for the latest version of SR's benchmarks. See the testbed 4 article (linked from every review) for the reasoning behind that, as well as a lot more information on the other tests.

File copy tests are easy to understand, but represent an oversimplified version of real life. The Office tests SR runs (playbacks of traces of actual application usage) are more representative of typical use, and would give a better impression of how snappy a system would feel with a given drive in general use.

The benefits of RAID 0 are generally dependant on the way you use it, not the drive. You could expect to see a similar relative improvement in working with your 1 GB files by using RAID 0 with any drive. But this is like your 1 x 300 MB vs. 300 x 1 MB example: in general use, it's not STR that's important, but firmware, cache and access times. RAID 0 for office or gaming represents a poor value investment - you're better off getting one fast drive like the Raptor 150 than two slower ones. Or if you've already got two drives, you're better off running OS and programs off one, pagefile and data off the other. Still, if you're still working with huge files, RAID 0 or 10 would definitely speed that work up.

I wouldn't bother with RAID 10 unless downtime due to a drive failure could be really expensive for you. As long as you keep good, regular backups, there's no other reason to have redundant storage. An external/removable backup drive would be a better investment if you haven't got one already.

Regarding drive noise, while it's useful that SR does benchmarks, and they seem to correlate reasonably well with which drives are quieter and louder, SPCR has more detail (on fewer drives) regarding acoustic performance. They've also got articles and extensive forums regarding how to make your drive/system quieter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spod, thanks for the informative reply -- especially referring me back to the Testbed 4 setup. I had read it but the information didn't stick. I guess after looking at tens of graphs of useless information on other sites, you tend to develop a glassy eyed approach to looking at them.

I had understood what the Office and High-End Desktop tests did, but not exactly what they measured. Office is for everyday type use while High-End is geared towards large file/long sequential reads. Correct? As I use none of the software in the High-End test, it seemed irrelevant to me when I read it. Once I saw that it deals with large files, it made much more sense and is obviously relevant to my 1+gig file needs.

Now that I think I understand the tests, a fairly obvious observation comes out of the Performance Database that I had not read anywhere. Load the Performance Database and compare the 150 and 74gig Raptors, the 250 gig drives (sans the Seagate as it clearly is outperformed), the Samsung P80 160 gig drive and any of your favorite big drives like the Hitachi 7K500. If you look at only the High-End DriveMark you can see that performance improves as drive size increases. The Raptors need different treatment but as the real difference between them is just the size of the drive it just confirms the point -- don't let her kid you, size matters. Larger capacity disks handle larger files faster.

This brings me to another observation of the tests. Looking at the Testbed 4 basic statistics for the Office DriveMark, it appears there is a significant amount of large file handling (over 20 percent) in that test. That seems very high to me. I plead ignorance here but is this close to the average for a normal user's activity of booting, opening and reading email, opening a browser and hitting your favorite sites, maybe a spreadsheet and a Word document and IMing your friends and relatives? (I'm sure this is answered in another thread but it is easier to ask someone that knows than wading through the myriad of posts to find the answer, thanks.) The reason I ask is that if bigger drives have better performance on larger files and the Office DriveMark has too many big file handles in it relative to actual use, the Office test is biased to favor the larger drives. I make this point because I think it could significantly impact what you want to put in your box. Look at the Office DriveMark scores between the 250 gig Hitachi and the 160 gig P80. Is the Hitachi really a faster drive when compared to the P80 or is the big file issue clouding the answer to that question? If the improved performance of the newer drives are only being driven by the larger capacity, there is obviously no reason to upgrade other than to get more space or if you happen to deal with large files (which I have said I do.)

So where am I going with this. As Spod said, you might be better off with a fast drive for system and programs and another drive or RAID for large files. This is exactly where I ended up with in current configuration. These 250 giggers seem to only be faster for large files (from my interpretation, I can be wrong).

With that said, now my complete naivete with RAID will shine through. If size is driving the large drive performance and there are lots of small, fast, Office-friendly drives out there for cheap, couldn't I improve my office performance with 2, 3, or 4, 80 gig drives in a RAID 0 for my system and programs and then maybe two of these 250 gig drives in another RAID 0 for my large files and or, as someone else was asking, in a big media file server? That these 250's are so cheap per gig, they make perfect sense in the latter. That I can buy three 80 gig drives for the price of a 74 gig Raptor suggests that those in a RAID 0 configuration may be the better alternative, if they are faster in RAID 0 than the single Raptor (don't know again, am asking). I have several nice little 80 gigs laying around so cost there is zero for me.

As for the issue of sound, thanks for the info on the other website. I had seen it referenced but had never visited. Will check it out. This is just a suggestion to Eugene. As he obviously has the equipment in place for testing already, it seems a simple matter to go ahead and measure the sound while the drive is active. A more complete review can only endear us more to a good site for valuable info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Office drivemark is basically a capture of Office winstone 2004, while the High End test is based on Content Creation Winstone. The SR benchmark just takes the drive accesses generated during the Winstone test and plays them back without the intervening delays, thus focusing on drive performance. Naturally, content creation involves the use of bigger (media) files.

That the Office benchmark uses reasonably big files probably reflects that it's intended (by the creators of Winstone) to test fairly intense Office work; multitasking, working with big (for Office apps) files, generally trying to stress the system. But it's still office-type work, so if your use is lighter, you should see drives ranked in the same order, but the differences between them would be smaller. Let's face it, hunt and peck typing in Word doesn't stress anything these days.

It's possible that Office Winstone is a bad benchmark that doesn't correctly represent typical office work. But that seems unlikely, given that they will have done a bit of research, and they're doing real tasks with real apps in a defined way. It's at least more accountable than if Eugene had created the traces himself.

Regarding 'size matters', higher density platters improve STR, and bigger disks don't have to seek as far to cross the same amount of data. So yes, it does make a difference. Other factors come into play when comparing different drive families, of course.

The 74 GB and 150 GB Raptors are very different beasts, with the 150 GB model being a complete redesign with a bigger cache and (presumably) better firmware. One 150 GB Raptor is faster than 2 or 4 74 GB Raptors in RAID 0, because the design improvements, combined with the size advantage, give it a big edge, even against the STR advantage of RAID 0.

Also, we saw the 250 GB Maxtor DiamondMax10 beat the otherwise identical, but older 300 GB MaxLine III simply because of firmware and zoning improvements. It's important to consider the relative impact of design, tweaking, size, RAID 0 etc.

Regarding the "lots of small drives in RAID 0" approach, it will give you better STR, but worse everything else. Access times will suffer a little, as each access has to wait for the last drive to finish. You'll need plenty of space for the drives, and heat and noise will be an issue. Also, the smaller drives, being at the budget end of the market, tend to have smaller caches.

I'd go for a single, reasonably fast drive for your OS and apps, and maybe consider RAID for your data. But your choice is, of course, your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Spod and a bit more back on topic, here is a simple comparison of the relative increase/decrease in speed for hte user based tests.

150 Raptor WD2500KS P120

SR Office DriveMark 2006 31% 0% -4%

SR High-End DriveMark 2006 36% -7% -4%

FarCry Performance 19% -18% -25%

The Sims 2 Performance 27% -14% -15%

World of Warcraft Performance 15% -16% -27%

Average 26% -11% -15%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the "code" tag can help:

		 				   150 Raptor	WD2500KS  P120
SR Office DriveMark 2006			31%	0%	-4%
SR High-End DriveMark 2006		36%	-7%	-4%
FarCry Performance				19%	-18%	-25%
The Sims 2 Performance			27%	-14%	-15%
World of Warcraft Performance	15%	-16%	-27%
Average	   			 		26%	-11%	-15%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Spod and a bit more back on topic, here is a simple comparison of the relative increase/decrease in speed for the user based tests. If I want a fast everyday drive and I can believe the tests, here are the basic numbers in comparison with the widely used, fast 74gig Raptor. Percents are taken from that Raptor's scores. I only use the WD and Samsung 250gigs because I have come down to those two based on looking at the Reliabilty Survey's and the Performance database.

150 Raptor WD2500KS P120

SR Office DriveMark 2006 31% 0% -4%

SR High-End DriveMark 2006 36% -7% -4%

FarCry Performance 19% -18% -25%

The Sims 2 Performance 27% -14% -15%

World of Warcraft Performance 15% -16% -27%

Average 26% -11% -15%

I'm not sure how this table will look as I don't know how to format tables in this editor. Forgive me if it looks goofy.

So, following Spod's recommendation of a fast basic drive and looking at the new Raptor 150, you get about a 25% improvement in speed over little Raptor, a little more than half the capacity of the 250gig and have to pay nearly treble the the cost of the 250s! :o:o Not value friendly at all. Speed kills boys and girls.

Looking for the most bang for my buck and me being a nongamer, the WD and Samsung are a toss-up. They are nearly as fast as the little Raptor for everyday stuff and big files. These drives have over three times the capacity of the little Raptor and cost $30 less. ;) No wonder Newegg is offering a rebate on the little Raptors. Their price will have to fall fast to compete with these new 250s. The decision for me is the marginal performance improvement of the WD over the Samsung and the slightly better reliabilty of the Samsung. The numbers provided by 888 would indicate statistical significance of the reliabilty for the P120 at nearly the 5% level. Compare that to the Maxline, UGH!! :blink: The P120 is a few bucks cheaper than the WD. "So close your eyes and pull z trigger."

That this drive will likely end up in my kids box someday playing one of the above games, I just put the WD in my cart. Thanks again guys :D !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
Just a reminder: T7K250 still has no Reliability Database entry.

It should be available for data input now... sorry about the problem guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I am sorry for my English...I can't speak English...

I I have just looked at 250 GB Drive Roundup quickly also forum and I don't understand

too much...but I see that here are intelligent

people so I need Yours help...

I have to buy a new 250 hard drive, because my 60GB Seagate

Barracuda 4 is too small and slow. I usually play on games,

recording DVD and decoding DVD movies so I think that I need quite

fast hard drive. My old Barca 4 has above 3 years and I want to sell

it. I will buy one a new hard drive, not two to make RAID. I have no

cash to buy 2 drivers.

New 250GB hard drive should be fast and solid. When I bought hard

drive it must works at least 3-4 years...I was thinking about such drivers:

Hitachi T7K250 8MB cache Sata2 NCQ

Is it really the fastest hard drive? I wanted to buy it, but somebody told me that Hitachi (IBM) drive will never survive 3 years...It is true? Besides Hitachi costs 10% more than Samsung

and here is difficult to find.

Samsung 8MB cache Sata2 NCQ

The most people who I asked tell me that Samsung is the fastest hard

drive and I should buy it. Average read in HDTach 62 mb/s (T7K250 56 mb/s). My old Barracuda 33 mb/s. Samsung is also very quiet and cold drive. People talk that Samsung is the best choice and I should not affraid that it is Samsung, because new Samsung are much more better than old models. Here Samsung is cheap and easy to find.

WD Caviar SE 16MB cache Sata2 NCQ

One guy at shop told me that hard drive who has 16 mb cache is

faster and better than drive with 8 mb cache. It is really true?

I don't think so... I saw that drive with 8 mb cache (Samsung) is faster than WD drive with 16 mb cache. Besides Samsung is here cheaper than WD.

Seagate 9.7200 16MB cache Sata2 NCQ

I know that 160GB Seagate 9.7200 is very fast drive, but I saw in

250 GB Drive Roundup that 250GB with 8MB not 16 MB cache is not too fast. Maybe Seagate 9.7200 with 16 MB cache is much more better than with 8 MB but I don't think so...Anybody have seen Seagate with 16 MB cache how good is? My friend told me that I should buy Seagate, because he is sure that Seagate will be works easy above 3 years. Some of you can think "Buy seagate.You will get 5 years guarantee". Unfortuntelly it is not true here, because here shops offers "only"3 years guarantee on Seagate drive. 3 years guarantee give also Hitachi,WD,Samsung,Maxtor here...

I have not too much time to buy new 250GB hard drive...maybe 1-2 weeks. As I said I would like to buy fast, solid drive who will be

works at least 3-4 years. It would be great if drive would be also

quiet (makes a noise not irritating), cold. I have not decided yet, but I think that Samsung will be the best choice. P120 is the fastest, quiet, cold and cheaper than for example WD, Seagate or Hitachi hard drive but I am not sure if is it the best choice...

So write to me,please what 250Gb Sata2 NCQ drive should I buy and

why?

P.S. Please answer to mee using a simple words, sentences. I don't

understand in English too much...

In advances thanks for all replies.

Fallon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't speak English...
I say you can! Better than most English people can speak French, or German, or Italian. B)

The Samsung P120 is the quietest, and because noise is important to you, I think that's your best choice.

Hitachi drives are now as reliable (solid) as any other brand. When it was IBM, they made some much less reliable drives, but all the new stuff is fine. Though more noisy and more expensive, the T7K250 is still a good choice if performance is more important to you than noise.

Any of the other drives would be fine, especially if they're available much cheaper than the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
So write to me,please what 250Gb Sata2 NCQ drive should I buy

My recommendation list for you is (best first):

1. Samsung P120 250GB

+Best sequential read; +Best quiet; +Almost cool; +Good reliability

2. Hitachi T7K250 250GB

+Best fastest seeking; +Strong performer; +Best cool; -Noisy seeking -Expensive

3. WD WD2500KS 250GB

+Overally good stable performer, all things ok, although not in top

4. Seagate 7200.9 250GB

+Best reliability (may be, but we don't know yet); -Average but stable performer

5. Maxtor MaXLine 250GB

+Strong performer; +NCQ really works ok; -Noisy seeking; -Low reliability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder: T7K250 still has no Reliability Database entry.

It should be available for data input now... sorry about the problem guys.

Thanks, it's now included in the database.

However, iirc it is already available since Q2 2005. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I am a disk newbie and a bit confused.

according to this 250Gb roundup review the WD2500KS comes out very well. But I can also find this review on the same website http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2005...WD2500KS_8.html which says

"Unfortunately, despite the decent gains, the WD2500KS lacks the pizzazz to match offerings from Maxtor and Hitachi test after test. The drive's 250 GB capacity, while nothing to sneeze at for most uses, also trails the 300+ GB capacities of the competition. As a result, when continuing to seek the absolute best in 7200 RPM performance and space, power users should continue to look to the MaXLine III and Deskstar 7K400. Further, the lack of an NCQ implementation remains disappointing. WD argues that NCQ implementation does not really help and can in fact hurt performance on the desktop, which remains the drive's overwhelming target market."

Can anyone explain why thw WD2500KS gets one good review and one bad on the same site ?

and also should I buy one ?

thanks

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
Can anyone explain why thw WD2500KS gets one good review and one bad on the same site ?

and also should I buy one ?

There's not one and the only right answer existing, probably... You better take in addition more independent sources to make your decisions. On my mind there's two highly respectable and in-depth HDD analyzis sites existing today on web - the one is of course StorageReview and the other is a russian site IXBT (english version of it is Digit-Life but only some few original articles translated there). So, for an in-depth WD2500KS review you can look here:

http://www.ixbt.com/storage/wd2500ks-js.shtml

Even if you are unable read the text (which has some very unique information) you still can view the test graphs and comparisons with other similar drives.

Disclaimer: I am personally no way related to this site and this is not intended to be an advertising. Just a reliable source for pure tech information about HDDs only.

Here's the list of all known for me reviews about WD2500KS:

http://www.storagereview.com/articles//200...WD2500KS_1.html

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/250_1.html

http://www.xyzcomputing.com/index.php?opti...ask=view&id=478

http://www.hardware-review.net/html/module...article&sid=177

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/wd-ca...16/index.x?pg=1

http://www.ixbt.com/storage/wd2500ks-js.shtml

http://www.ixbt.com/storage/wd2500xs-sii3124.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain why thw WD2500KS gets one good review and one bad on the same site ?

and also should I buy one ?

There's not one and the only right answer existing, probably... You better take in addition more independent sources to make your decisions. On my mind there's two highly respectable and in-depth HDD analyzis sites existing today on web - the one is of course StorageReview and the other is a russian site IXBT (english version of it is Digit-Life but only some few original articles translated there). So, for an in-depth WD2500KS review you can look here:

http://www.ixbt.com/storage/wd2500ks-js.shtml

Even if you are unable read the text (which has some very unique information) you still can view the test graphs and comparisons with other similar drives.

Disclaimer: I am personally no way related to this site and this is not intended to be an advertising. Just a reliable source for pure tech information about HDDs only.

Here's the list of all known for me reviews about WD2500KS:

http://www.storagereview.com/articles//200...WD2500KS_1.html

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/250_1.html

http://www.xyzcomputing.com/index.php?opti...ask=view&id=478

http://www.hardware-review.net/html/module...article&sid=177

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/wd-ca...16/index.x?pg=1

http://www.ixbt.com/storage/wd2500ks-js.shtml

http://www.ixbt.com/storage/wd2500xs-sii3124.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain why thw WD2500KS gets one good review and one bad on the same site ?

and also should I buy one ?

There's not one and the only right answer existing, probably... You better take in addition more independent sources to make your decisions. On my mind there's two highly respectable and in-depth HDD analyzis sites existing today on web - the one is of course StorageReview and the other is a russian site IXBT (english version of it is Digit-Life but only some few original articles translated there). So, for an in-depth WD2500KS review you can look here:

http://www.ixbt.com/storage/wd2500ks-js.shtml

Even if you are unable read the text (which has some very unique information) you still can view the test graphs and comparisons with other similar drives.

Disclaimer: I am personally no way related to this site and this is not intended to be an advertising. Just a reliable source for pure tech information about HDDs only.

Here's the list of all known for me reviews about WD2500KS:

http://www.storagereview.com/articles//200...WD2500KS_1.html

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200601/250_1.html

http://www.xyzcomputing.com/index.php?opti...ask=view&id=478

http://www.hardware-review.net/html/module...article&sid=177

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/wd-ca...16/index.x?pg=1

http://www.ixbt.com/storage/wd2500ks-js.shtml

http://www.ixbt.com/storage/wd2500xs-sii3124.shtml

curious to see how the newer 7200.9 16MB 300G does vs the 8MB 250G

I know seagates unfortunately are not the fastest but they are reliable and that is what I like the most.

hopefully somebody does a review on it vs relative sized drives of the same

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