BroadbandBilly

Hitachi Announces New Deskstar HDDs

Recommended Posts

A 750...1000GB drive would be a logical successor to current Kurofunes (5-platter model). They created the 5-platter construction to make very high capacity drives (at that time) and now they plan to make the same capacity drives with fewer platters (=same capacity cheaper).

While HGST has implied that 7K400 and 7K500 would be around for those requiring "more IO/s" and better "availability" (thus being "nearline"), I doubt they'd sell in big enough numbers after arrival of T7K500 this summer. By that I mean, other manufacturers make their "nearline" drives by simply making factory testing longer than the period used for qualifying "desktop" drives. Kurofune is different: it is totally different from Vancouver, and thus making Kurofunes for nearline market would probably cost more than making Vancouvers with longer factory testing period.

It's probable that they're already planning on increasing the data density on these 5-platter monsters to compete or surpass the offerings of Seagate. That way Kurofune series could still remain profitable and 7K500 might still co-exist.

The other possibility might be to cut the funding on development of Kurofune and let the series cease to exist after demand for 7K500 has lowered to a level when making them is no longer profitable. HGST has told 7K400 and 7K500 would continue to co-exist with new Vancouvers, but AFAIK they've not released any information about their plans on future development of this flagship line of drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As 7K400 and 7K500 were targetted for Nearline Storage, HGST must continue them for support, and RAID Array upgrading.

I think a 7K750 car be a good drive for competiting against Seagate NL35.3. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mei: "I think a 7K750 car be a good drive for competiting against Seagate NL35.3."

Plus, if T7K750 is priced low enough, it'd compete against 7200.10 as well... especially if it's performance-wise superior to 7200.10.

Serville: "I wonder why everyone still considers IBM/Hitachi HD despite their bad reputation"

Every manufacturer has had their ups and downs.... and that includes even Seagate, no matter how good reputetion they have. That reputation once belong to IBM, until the infamous GXP incident. Maxtor made has made bad drive quite recently. Seagate made some bad drives when they introduced 7200.8. Last ball-bearing WDs have all low reliability ratings regardless of capacity. I don't know if Samsung has "flopped" in the near past, but neither have they excelled... ever. El cheapo is el cheapo. Whether one considers a Seagate, WD(3200) or Hitachi to be most reliable, all of them have had problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what's so funny about that when the sentence is still comprehensible.. "Ooh, a minor grammatical lol lol".

Anyway, I look forward to those new drives. In terms of reliability, I'd say that it is mostly hit and miss nowadays. Reliability -is- important to me, but it just doesn't seem to be something you can accurately measure. Performance wise, I am not too bothered, I'll mainly be using those drives for mass storage. But the release of new 500+ GB drives should make 400-500GB drives more affordable, making it more feasible to have 1TB+ storage in a midtower PC.

Edited by TooNice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are there any real differences between:

HDS721680PLA380

7K160 80GB, 8mb SATAII

and

HDS728080PLA380

7K80 80GB, 8mb SATAII

particularly if running in RAID0 array.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7K80 80GB has 1 platter and 2 heads. 7K160 80GB has 1 platter and 1 head.

I would assume sequential transfer rates to be better. PATA models have 8MB cache instead of 2MB. New and old SATA models have the same amount of cache. Seek performance is the same (at least in the specs). EDIT: actually it's 8.5ms (7K160) instead of 8.8ms (7K80).

Edited by whiic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeh, I noticed the small difference in seek times. What effect does 2 heads (7K80) versus 1 head (7K160) have on performance?

Also, has anyone seen any of the 7K160's anywhere - or will we have to wait till the 3rd quarter of '06.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder why everyone still considers IBM/Hitachi HD despite their bad reputation, which I have proven myself too many times.

I have 3 IBM GXP series which died in 12-15 months, 3 Hitachi notebook hd which died in 2 years. The last one is only 1 week ago.

Meanwhile, I'm still using my old Seagate 20GB 5400 rpm which I have used for 5 years, 20GB 7200RPM Quantum for 6 years, 40GB Seagate Cuda IV for 4 years, 120GB Seagate Cuda 4 for 3 years, another 120GB Cuda IV for 2 years, and a 10GB Maxtor for 8 years !!!.

Hitachi/IBM, for me personally, is the most crappy HD with severe reliabilty problem.

Of the dozen plus hard drives we have ever had, none have failed. The oldest one still getting daily (24/7) use is a 1.2GB Western Digital Caviar. Works just wonderfully :) However, I can't say much for IBM/Hitachi drives, i've never had one (aside from a Hitachi laptop drive that's only a few months old and gets light use). My favorites are Seagate and Western Digital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, looks very promising series indeed!

At first, there's nice all-covering capacity selection in pretty logical row:

80, 160, 250, 320, 400, 500 GB

of which the basic models are:

160, 320, 500 GB (1, 2, 3 platters accordingly)

and short-stroked versions are:

250, 400 GB

and one-head/one-platterside model is:

80 GB

This 160GB 1-platter model will be a strong competitor to the current Seagate 7200.9 160GB 1-platter flagship.

But it's a completely new thing to get 500GB in 3 platters and 320GB in 2 platters! What Seagate was unable to do, Hitachi did now!

Now there's very real possibilities we will get the world's fastest 320GB and 500GB drives soon!

The only thing I can say to you is I have had maybe 3 seagate drives*** fail me personally in 15 years Currently I have 13 disks spinning right now, only two are not seagate. I switched my inventory out at my store completely to seagate just this year simply because I have been getting tired of RMA'ing Western dig and Hitachi drives (I RMA disks for customers within one year of purchase). Don't get me wrong Hitachi makes a good disk IMHO, but my money is always on Seagate when I care about the data. When pinching pennies a seeking a "value", reliability is my number one concern.

*WD and Hitachi return rates per disk sold were pretty comparable and remain coming in at their normal rate. Generally I RMA 3 hitachi or WD drives for every one seagate. (Worst drive in the world IMHO is 120gb BBRTL series western digital hard drives... must be the stock my vendor was getting but these drives were a curse!)

***= all three were Seagate U series drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*WD and Hitachi return rates per disk sold were pretty comparable and remain coming in at their normal rate. Generally I RMA 3 hitachi or WD drives for every one seagate. (Worst drive in the world IMHO is 120gb BBRTL series western digital hard drives... must be the stock my vendor was getting but these drives were a curse!)

***= all three were Seagate U series drives.

I had 4 gxp75`s, they are all alive today in friends computers ;)

But the two 80GB seagatedisk`s I bought two years ago both died in less than 3 week`s after I got them. They where replaced with 2 WD units, both of them are still alive today.

I also have one dead Maxtor 200GB, the hottest drive by far, burnt my fingers on that one.

The point of my story is that all brands have problems from time to time :( Who`s next no one know`s

Edited by ArcticOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888

The new Hitachi 7K160 160GB is available in Japan now (already 12 days ago)...

sfhd2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9.5ms random seek time? That's even worse than the 7K80's specified 8.8ms. And these should be 8.5ms according to the specs. STR is just a tad slower than 7200.10 320GB. Makes me wonder what kind of real-world performance these have...

And how about power consumption (=heat production) and drive noise?

T7K500 is a completely different model, so I hope they'd have faster seeks. We'll see... 7K160 could be suited for silent systems, providing it's silent of course.

Edited by whiic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9.5ms random seek time? That's even worse than the 7K80's specified 8.8ms. And these should be 8.5ms according to the specs. STR is just a tad slower than 7200.10 320GB. Makes me wonder what kind of real-world performance these have...

And how about power consumption (=heat production) and drive noise?

T7K500 is a completely different model, so I hope they'd have faster seeks. We'll see... 7K160 could be suited for silent systems, providing it's silent of course.

It is an ATA one model, without NCQ, so compare is hard. But my T7K250 have the same seek than my 7K80s even if specs tells 8.5ms for T7K250 and 8.8ms for 7K80. Higher density is not good for seek times.

For STR, Seagate have better on 7200.10, but T7K500 is announced to have ~10% more STR than 7K160 so, it may be on par, but with a slightly better firmware for Hitachi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7K160 is all over the place. So far only T7K500 250GB PATA/SATA is available, they ain't worth yr $$$. (2 platters 4 heads design)

why ain't these drives out yet

planning a system upgrade in 2 weeks and i really wanted the 7K160 & T7K500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was looking to get the 160GB 7K160 & the 320 T7K500 but my new build cant wait anylonger

am i better off getting the 160G & 250GB T7K250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the 160GB if you can't wait.

was looking to get the 160GB 7K160 & the 320 T7K500 but my new build cant wait anylonger

am i better off getting the 160G & 250GB T7K250

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