qwe123

Seagate 7200.10 Review

Recommended Posts

Man Seagate sucks now. Obviously 0.1sec faster or 1sec faster don't matter. As a human you won't see much difference. BUT noise is always something that is bugging. I'd rather have "a little" slower drive to get silent drives. You know how frustrating it is when hearing your drive is noisy.

You type URL, internet explorer go to that site, the drive already makes some noise. I have 7200.9 160GB SATA II. IMO: quieter compared to 7200.8 (totally noisy), it is really bugging me. Unless you work in environment/large office where many phone calls coming in, people talk etc... but in silent room, evening, it's not good.

I plan to upgrade my other PC with 7200.10, but after reading some reviews here, I have to hold on it. Start looking on WD or something. I can't believe it. Seagate is pricey so I expect not only performance wise, but also quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seagate is pricey? Actually Seagate is the cheapest here in NZ, cheaper then Maxtor, WD, Hitachi, Samsung etc. Some WD models are comparable but these are the older models and not the RE with 5 year warranty (whereas all Seagate have 5 year warranty of course). From memory, Seagate is also one of the cheapest in Malaysia.

BTW, it's not 0.1 or 1 sec. It's 0.8-1ms (milisec, i.e. 0.0008-0.001 sec). And it can actually make a fair difference but it depends on many factors so it's difficult to evaluate in itself.

If it were a 1 sec difference believe me, it would make a VERY big difference. BTW, a 1 sec difference is actually a very noticable to most humans in any real time app. Try playing a game with a 1 sec latency or having a phone call. Or using Windows remote desktop. Or a movie with a 1 sec delay between the video and the audio.

Since we have no way or knowing why the drive has noisier seeks, if the seeks are noisier, it's a bit silly IMHO to blame Seagate for making the decision to have noisier drives for faster seeks when we don't even know if that's the reason for the noisier seeks. As for the noise issue in itself, it depends a lot on the user. Some people have fairly noisy comps anyway and so the drive noise may not be noticable. Most people notice certain noises more then others and some people think the drive is quiet. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with wanting a quiet comp and indeed many people do want a quiet comp. My point is that it's rather difficult to say whether Seagate have made a good or bad decision here. The bigger issue from the end user POV IMHO is probably the lack of AAM, but that's perhaps best discussed elsewhere.

Edited by Nil Einne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
Just bought the 200 GB version.

Read Max. 77 MB/s

Read Min. 42 MB/s

Avg Read. 62.2 MB/s

So, which platter is used for 200GB ?

Does it use single 200GB plater ?

Some people here got 69-70MB/s for their 320GB.

Shouldn't I get higher than 62MB/s if it is really single plater ?

Your test result indicates that this 7200.10 200GB drive does not have a 200GB platter. It is just 2-platter drive, sure. It may be 2 x 160GB platters probably, with one head omitted plus little short-stroked. Theoretically it may be as well 133GB platters with one head omitted (this gives the exact capacity figure) but the test results are more like 4-heads and short stroked 133-platters then. Still, 77MB/s maximum is too much for any 133GB platters, it's more like the 160GB platters. But as we know here the famous 320GB version gives about 82MB/s maximum, so khmm.. 320GB must be 188GB platters short-stroked?

Note: However the STR figures are not exactly related (fixed) to platter capacities. Some same-capacity platters may have more high-density bits along tracks, some others may have more high-density tracks side-by-side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the maximum for the 160gb/platter 7200.10 320gb around 78k?

My example

HD Tune: ST3320620AS Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 38.3 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Maximum : 78.5 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Average : 64.5 MB/sec

Access Time : 13.6 ms

Burst Rate : 205.9 MB/sec

CPU Usage : 10.4%

BTW, when it comes to seek times, this link might be interesting http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=21104 While this thread is primarily arguing against the usefulness of seek times per se, as a metric, it also explains why it silly to say a 1ms difference is useless because no one can notice it. Also when it comes to 1s difference, I thought of a few more examples. Think of a LCD with a 1s response time or a CRT with a 1hz frequency or 1 FPS...

Edited by Nil Einne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
Isn't the maximum for the 160gb/platter 7200.10 320gb around 78MB/s?

My example

HD Tune: ST3320620AS Benchmark

Transfer Rate Maximum : 78.5 MB/sec

Transfer Rate Average : 64.5 MB/sec

It depends... Usually HD Tune gives a bit lower results than HD Tach.

The various test results for 7200.10 320GB collected from this topic:

- STR Max: 78, 79, 80, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85 MB/s

- STR Avg: up to 68.4 MB/s

It may vary also from drive to drive, also because of testing environment. Not sure which value is true but these little variations aren't so essential, too. Anyway, this 7200.10 320GB is sure the top-STR drive on the market today (of 7200rpm drives). Even its 750GB version is a tiny bit (usually -1...-2 MB/s) slower (based on 7 different reviews which used comparable HD Tach tests).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand these complaints of noise. I've heard several times that the new 7200.10's are louder than the 7200.9, but still quieter than the 7200.8. I have 2 7200.8 drives and I cannot hear them over my 2 120MM case fans or my power supply. I even have a 74GB Raptor that I can't hear over those. I don't even notice those fans most of the time. I have been in the habit of ignoring the fan noise for over 5 years. I sleep in the same room as my computer and I have no complaints about noise keeping me awake.

Sure, old hard drives are noisy as all hell. I have a couple Maxtor 20GB drives that produce this high pitched whine that does not allow me to sleep. I don't use them specifically because of that. Old hard drives are quite noisy, but the current ones are easily quiet enough that I don't notice them at all. That includes all IDE and SATA drives I have heard. I never even hear the seek noises. I've even had the pleasure of dealing with SATA 7200.7 drives in the latest HP systems we are using. These systems have just a CPU fan, on very low and not audible, and a power supply fan, again inaudible. I never hear the drives in these new systems unless I have the case open.

If you're putting the drive in a case, it should be completely inaudible. If it is not, you're doing something wrong, maybe hooking up a mic, amplifier and speaker to it. If it is not in a case, that is reckless and should be in a case. Stop complaining about it and stop putting your ear to the drive just to have something to complain about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't understand these complaints of noise."

"I have 2 7200.8 drives and I cannot hear them over my 2 120MM case fans or my power supply. I even have a 74GB Raptor that I can't hear over those. I don't even notice those fans most of the time."

"Old hard drives are quite noisy, but the current ones are easily quiet enough that I don't notice them at all. That includes all IDE and SATA drives I have heard. I never even hear the seek noises."

"If you're putting the drive in a case, it should be completely inaudible."

"Stop complaining about it and stop putting your ear to the drive just to have something to complain about."

My diagnosis: dgingeri's hearing isn't very good nor does he (or she) understand his condition, and that makes him untolerant against people who appear to hear voices he cannot.

Cannot hear a Raptor's seek noise at all over the case fans? Well, that sure is possible if the case fans were so loud that they obstructed all other noise sources. But then again dgingeri mentions he doesn't even notice the presence of fan noice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right, I don't hear the sound of the Raptor seeks at all when the drive is in my system. not even when I put my ear within an inch of the front intake. The loudest fans of my system are actually the cooling fans of my SLI 7800GT's. they can be noticable, but they are constant and even. they don't fluctuate or rattle at all. if they did, I would notice them. My case fans and CPU fan are much quieter. 2X 120MM case fans and an Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 for the CPU. My Silverstone power supply is even quieter than those.

I can hear the drives when they are outside of the system only and fairly close to me. Personally, I like to hear a little of the drive seeks sometimes when doing support so that I know the drive is actually doing something. Granted, I don't like it drowning out my TV broadcast or game, since I do both through my computer and don't even own a TV. (yes, that's right, no TV's in my apartment at all.) If it were to do that, I would complain. I have a couple old 20GB drives that still work, but I can't stand having them on due to their high pitched whine. They now just sit in anti-static bags waiting for the day I retire them and take them apart. I'm not yet sure if I want to do that.

My mother is a perfectionist and extremely critical. If I went into the kitchen and poured a glass of milk, she would get after me about 'making a mess of the kitchen' when she detected a disturbance in the fine layer of dust that gathered in the 10 minutes since the last time she cleaned the kitchen. If I would sit in the living room, she would get after me about making a mess in there when one of the wrinkles in one of the pillows was off just slightly. I hated her for that picky attitude. I love her because she's my mother, but I don't like her or like being around her for very long. I see that attitude in others and I say the things that I can't really say to her: "Cut it out and stop being so damn picky. Life is never, ever perfect. live with it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't believe there are still ppl that would sacrifice their disks performance over its silent operation...

i mean, we are talking about the slowest part of our current systems...

even a milisecond of access time counts...

if you have such good hearing spend some extra $$$ and get a 5,25 hdd soundproof bay...

or if you don't care about performance get yourself some 5400rpm ide disks...

if you wanna have lots of disks get an external rackmount ang hide them in your closet...

but i don't think its rational to judge a brand new killer disk by the noise levels it produces...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's still unclear (for me) which and how many platters they would use in their upcoming 960GB drive...

I know this quote is from page 2 -- but does anyone know the approximate timetable for the 960GB drives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"i can't believe there are still ppl that would sacrifice their disks performance over its silent operation..."

To me, the question is, how much sacrifice for how much benefit. I wouldn't sacrifice half the performance for slight decrease in noise. I could consider sacrificing less than 10% of performance for getting rid of noisy seeks, though. Not on my system drive, but at least on my storage drives. My system drive will have AAM disabled in future as well, but my system drive is and will be a 1-platter drive.

"i mean, we are talking about the slowest part of our current systems..."

Maybe, but some people think that it's already fast enough. Sure: the industry will push faster CPUs to the market and create a new generation of supahypa-5-dimensional graphix card every few months, but those who don't play (new) games could well survive without the graphics card that has way more computing power than most CPUs just a few years ago.

"even a milisecond of access time counts..."

I wouldn't notice a 1ms lag when watching a movie from a HDD. Especially when the software does some caching in addition to hardware caching. 1ms difference could only be noticed with a stop-watch and only in a environment with highly random seeks (like booting a system from a highly fragmented drive or working a web server, seeding files and uploading stuff in few kilobyte chunks through a very fast web connection to hundred other machines).

"or if you don't care about performance get yourself some 5400rpm ide disks..."

Would do, but I can't find them anymore. The last one I knew was for sale was a refurbished MaXLine II 300GB. I didn't buy it, because it was refurbished and had a price tag higher than new 7200rpm FDB drives. Sure, a MaXLine II is quiet despite ball-bearings. I know because I have one. What I don't know is how the noise changes over the time. It just might sound like a turbocharger of a twenty-year-old Karhu-Sisu.

"but i don't think its rational to judge a brand new killer disk by the noise levels it produces..."

Ain't judging. Certainly Raptor isn't meant for silencing freaks. I don't consider Seagate 750GB a "killer" before I see the review with it and T7K500 head-to-head. Even then, neither of them is a "killer" when compared to Raptor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I upgrade my drives for one main reason, speed/price ratio

I will get 2 of these 320G to replace my maxtor 300Gs simply due to the speed

These new drives are easily over 10M/s faster than the maxtors/hitachi which i got 7 months ago

From some stopwatch timed transfer rates of a 4G file

Hitachi 250G SATA2 -> 7200.10 320G 42.6M/s

7200.10 -> 7200.10 71.3M/s

70M/s sustained will keep me happy for year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Found this at Seagate site :

Barracuda 7200.10 SATA Product Manual (PDF) Approx. 1.6MB

Spotted interesting difference among 7200.10 drives from above PDF in page 29 :

<removed image to save on their bandwidth>

Noob question, why there are different Recording Density ? How "much" will it affect the performance ?

Is that really matter say 250GB vs 300GB in performance ?

-

now that is a darn good question. will we see better performance from the 250GB model than the 320GB model? I was about to order a pair of 320's, but newegg has the 250's available as well, and if they perform better, I think I need to consider that. Also, how would this affect seek times? I believe the 250's are 2 platter, 3 head models, but if they have longer seek times, but higher transfer rates, which would be better for game and OS loading? If a pair of 320's would perform better than a pair of 250's, then I'll get the 320's, but if a pair of 250 would perform just as well or better, I would have to go with the 250's. I just don't know right now. I think I'll just use the money to pay off my monitor and wait 2 more weeks to see the answer to this problem.

Edited by dgingeri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
now that is a darn good question. will we see better performance from the 250GB model than the 320GB model?

For me this table referred above looks like a questionable mess. At first because of we have found here (and confirmed by Seagate) that they may use different density platters (and even different number of platters) in the same exact model, just varying from batch to batch. At second, almost all of the numerous real reviewers and testers of 320GB and 750GB versions have got very similar maximum STR values (around 80MB/s) for both versions, in fact the 750GB seems to be even a tiny bit slower! Although this above-referred Seagate's document indicates 750GB to have much higher databit density. And at same time one and the only test result we have yet for 200GB 7200.10 has been much slower at all. Nothing seems to match to that official table...

Edited by 888

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man Seagate sucks now. Obviously 0.1sec faster or 1sec faster don't matter. As a human you won't see much difference. BUT noise is always something that is bugging. I'd rather have "a little" slower drive to get silent drives. You know how frustrating it is when hearing your drive is noisy.

You type URL, internet explorer go to that site, the drive already makes some noise. I have 7200.9 160GB SATA II. IMO: quieter compared to 7200.8 (totally noisy), it is really bugging me. Unless you work in environment/large office where many phone calls coming in, people talk etc... but in silent room, evening, it's not good.

I plan to upgrade my other PC with 7200.10, but after reading some reviews here, I have to hold on it. Start looking on WD or something. I can't believe it. Seagate is pricey so I expect not only performance wise, but also quiet.

I can sit next to the worst grinding hard drive you've ever heard and it doesn't bother me at all. But if it has whiny bearings, it drives me nuts. There is no FDB drive available now that whines loud enough to bother me. In other words, if two drives are the same price and capacity and one loads windows 5 seconds faster, I will buy that one no matter HOW loud it is, remembering that EVERY drive made today is so much quieter than old drives, it makes no difference to me. Seek noise never has and never will annoy me. I just like hearing things like that. I like cars where you can hear the engine running at idle. Cars where all that noise is absent bother me (Lexus for example). I like cars with suspension so stiff I can feel every crack in the road. So for me, sacrificing ANY performance for acoustics is unacceptable.

Edited by K15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El-cheapo software onboard Intel RAID setup using Intel Matrix Raid on my two new 7200.10 250GB (Raid 0/80 G + Raid 1/192G) two volumes at two physical disks.

Sorry for dial-up user, put out all the captured pics, any way my grandma says they worth millons words :P

PS : Jumper at both disks are disconnected to enable 3Gb speed.

The result :

Raid 0

HDTachIntelRaid0.jpg

Raid 1

HDTachIntelRaid1.jpg

Raid 0

HDTune_Benchmark_IntelRaid0Volume.jpg

Raid 1

HDTune_Benchmark_IntelRaid1Volume.jpg

Intel Matrix Raid setup screen ! Watch out for those "Write Back Cache" which must be manually enabled !

Vol0.jpg

Vol1.jpg

The disks details ! Just incase you want to compare it with your firmware or serial(batch).

Drive0.jpg

Drive1.jpg

LIER

Edited by Maj._Skillz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone bottom-line the size discussion for me, based on what is known about these drives right now? I'm looking at using 8 of these drives in a RAID 10, and am a bit concerned with the talk of using higher-capacity throwaways for lower-capacity drives.

So, based on what's been observed thusfar, keeping in mind that noise is not a consideration (for me) and that performance and reliability are everything (for me), which drive size should I go with? Even with the 200gb, we'll have enough storage capacity. I should be able to cost-justify up to 320gb, so my range is 200 - 320gb.

..remy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I suspected the 400GB 7200.10 is 2 platters

ST3400620A (the 2 before the 0 indicates 2 platters) Ingram Micro Australia are showing as having 127 in stock

Now I just have to patiently wait for the AS version :(

Edited by czr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it seems many people are interested in this drive, I will add a few quick comments on it as I have just installed one, the 320GB ST3320620AS model (16MB buffer). It was purchased at a local computer shop in Finland as a bare drive, .i.e. not a retail drive kit.

First, some relevant system specs: Antec Sonata case, Antec NEO 550w power supply, 120mm exhaust fan in back of case, 120mm intake fan behind the hard drive cage, ASUS A8N-SLI Premium (nForce 4 SLI chipset), ST3320620AS connected to SATA1 port on mb (nVidia nForce controller) mounted with rubber isolators, latest nVidia 6.70 drivers. I confirmed that SATA controller is using nVidia drivers and not Microsoft's. NCQ disabled in device manager. The drive has the ST chipset and 3.AAC firmware.

Noise: First of all, I was concerned after reading many posts saying this drive was loud, especially since I already had the drive in my hands. I was pleasantly surprised. Spindle whine is undetectable, at least over the noise of the 120mm exhaust fan in the back of the case, which is the loudest one in the system (though it is very far from what I would call loud...). Seeks are best described as "firm" and "audible", but are not in my opinion objectionable by any means. I have a huge amount of hard drive experience over the last 22 years, and this drive is definitely much closer to the quiet side of the scale. The seeks are just a bit louder and more noticeable than my previous drive, a 120 GB Maxtor DiamondMax 9 8MB PATA drive. I have a large number of DiamondMax 9's in use and consider them to be VERY quiet in normal use. Overall, I would rate this drive as pretty quiet, especially when I compare it to the 10k rpm IBM SCSI drive in my Linux workstation. I have absolutely no problem with the noise this drive makes, in fact I actually like to be able to hear the seeks at least a little bit. The seek noises made by this drive are fairly low frequency and not annoying at all. They are definitely not "clicky", like some drives.

Performance: Hard to say as I just finished cloning my old drive to this one about an hour ago, but suffice it to say I've always liked the respectable performance of the DiamondMax 9 drives combined with the quietness and reliability. The Seagate definitely "feels" fast at this point, although I will have to try a few slow loading games (this is my game rig) to see how much of an improvement this drive will be over the Maxtor. I'll post back to this thread in a few days after I've had a chance to experience the drive's performance.

To sum it up, so far so good with this drive, quiet, good performance so far and you gotta love the 5 year warranty. It is very likely I will buy more of these in the near future as I'm planning to build a new workstation. It was a hard decision not to buy another Maxtor because they have been very good to me (only 2 failed drives in the last several years, out of tens of drives....). But the price of these new Seagate's (104 €!) combined with 5 year warranty was too good to pass up. At least here in Finland, none of the other drive manufacturers can compete with that price/warranty combination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I suspected the 400GB 7200.10 is 2 platters

ST3400620A (the 2 before the 0 indicates 2 platters) Ingram Micro Australia are showing as having 127 in stock

Now I just have to patiently wait for the AS version :(

What do you mean the "AS" version? I read this entire thread, must have missed it... the drive I just installed has AS at the end of the model number. I take it the AS is a good thing...?

Edited by cbope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I suspected the 400GB 7200.10 is 2 platters

ST3400620A (the 2 before the 0 indicates 2 platters) Ingram Micro Australia are showing as having 127 in stock

Now I just have to patiently wait for the AS version :(

What do you mean the "AS" version? I read this entire thread, must have missed it... the drive I just installed has AS at the end of the model number. I take it the AS is a good thing...?

I think I may have answered my own question... the A designates the PATA drives and the AS designates the SATA drives... correct? I forgot the drives were also available in PATA interface...

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