imsabbel

Samsung F series?!

Recommended Posts

Question is, how long do these remain vaporware...

A German shop, cyberport.de, indicates for the HD103UJ "Presumably available starting from 14.06.2007" and gives a price of 259,90 Euro:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...%26as_qdr%3Dall

(In Firefox, the link returns to a T166 page after about 10 seconds of showing the details/specs.)

Now the same link for the HD103UJ says "Presumably available starting from 26.07.2007" and gives a price of 289,90 Euro....

Any news from distributors' databases?

344GB per platter, I can't wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question is, how long do these remain vaporware...

A German shop, cyberport.de, indicates for the HD103UJ "Presumably available starting from 14.06.2007" and gives a price of 259,90 Euro:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...%26as_qdr%3Dall

(In Firefox, the link returns to a T166 page after about 10 seconds of showing the details/specs.)

Now the same link for the HD103UJ says "Presumably available starting from 26.07.2007" and gives a price of 289,90 Euro....

Any news from distributors' databases?

344GB per platter, I can't wait!

Correction: 334GB/platter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering how far the white paper is from reality, especially seeing these numbers:

Media to/from Buffer (max.) 175 MB/sec

I realize that this is not the STR, but still, the numbers seem high, no?

No, not for 334 mbyte platters.

PS! Some signs are indicating Samsung's working on 320GB 2-platter 2.5" mobile-drive too.

Of course, 125 gbyte 2.5" platters are almost out so it's not strange that they're working on 'bigger' platters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the manufacturers specifications for the new Samsung Spinpoint F1 terabyte disk:

PDF-file

The superior data density translates into a 30% increase in data transfer! The 500 GB Samsung T166 is listed with a media to/from buffer- transfer rate around 135 MB/sec, while the brandnew 1 TB modell is listed with 175 MB/sec.

That means, we can expect real world data rates up to 110-120 MB/sec - just awesome!!!

In addition, there will be twice as much cache (32 MB) and special RAID editions, so this drive is certainly going to be the fastest SATA-drive around.

Regards,

Uwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are the manufacturers specifications for the new Samsung Spinpoint F1 terabyte disk:

PDF-file

The superior data density translates into a 30% increase in data transfer! The 500 GB Samsung T166 is listed with a media to/from buffer- transfer rate around 135 MB/sec, while the brandnew 1 TB modell is listed with 175 MB/sec.

That means, we can expect real world data rates up to 110-120 MB/sec - just awesome!!!

In addition, there will be twice as much cache (32 MB) and special RAID editions, so this drive is certainly going to be the fastest SATA-drive around.

Regards,

Uwe

It will be too good to be true :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question is, how long do these remain vaporware...

A German shop, cyberport.de, indicates for the HD103UJ "Presumably available starting from 14.06.2007" and gives a price of 259,90 Euro:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...%26as_qdr%3Dall

(In Firefox, the link returns to a T166 page after about 10 seconds of showing the details/specs.)

Today is 14th! :D Who's the first one to buy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It will be too good to be true"

Then maybe it is.

"going to be the fastest SATA-drive around"

In STR, probably... for a while. But in real-life performance... we'll see. 7K1000 has now quite a lead over the rest, so there's quite a bit for Samsung to catch up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 888
We need a petition page for a 666GB drive.

I'll support the idea :) That will make up an unique marketing item - you never know who will start to fan it!

Anyway, it's also technically a big waste to make 500GB and 750GB drives using 333GB platters...

At the same time 333GB fits for 320GB pretty ok, although why not to offer +13GB bonus capacity also there. Just marketing it still as 320GB drive but with some bright extra sticker "13GB Bonus Capacity!" added on the drive label. Or just let it a hidden surprise for users (just like Hitachi did earlier - its 160GB drives were in fact 164GB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't do that-- it's for comparison purposes, as commodity parts if your products aren't similar enough to be qualified as the same "160GB" or whatnot, you'll never get your drives into major OEM use.

IIRC Maxtor Maxline Plus II 250GB's were actually 250GiB or 244GiB or something larger than 250GB, rather than 250GB, which was a pleasant surprise... but meant that we had to keep a stock of them on hand for replacements because everyone else's 250GB drives were smaller and couldn't be used in our applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need a petition page for a 666GB drive.

I'll support the idea :) That will make up an unique marketing item - you never know who will start to fan it!

Anyway, it's also technically a big waste to make 500GB and 750GB drives using 333GB platters...

At the same time 333GB fits for 320GB pretty ok, although why not to offer +13GB bonus capacity also there. Just marketing it still as 320GB drive but with some bright extra sticker "13GB Bonus Capacity!" added on the drive label. Or just let it a hidden surprise for users (just like Hitachi did earlier - its 160GB drives were in fact 164GB).

Thou speakest the truth ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"IIRC Maxtor Maxline Plus II 250GB's were actually 250GiB or 244GiB or something larger than 250GB, rather than 250GB, which was a pleasant surprise... but meant that we had to keep a stock of them on hand for replacements because everyone else's 250GB drives were smaller and couldn't be used in our applications."

Maybe you should blame the application instead of blaming the drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"IIRC Maxtor Maxline Plus II 250GB's were actually 250GiB or 244GiB or something larger than 250GB, rather than 250GB, which was a pleasant surprise... but meant that we had to keep a stock of them on hand for replacements because everyone else's 250GB drives were smaller and couldn't be used in our applications."

Maybe you should blame the application instead of blaming the drive?

yes and no-- OEMs generally write specifications assuming products are equivalent, and test them as such. In this case, these drives, despite being advertised by Maxtor as 250GB, turned out to be different-- substantially bigger than all of the competitions' 250GB, which caused all kinds of headaches when having to deal with drives that were significantly smaller.

This is why most makers have drives of roughly the same size-- a 160GB drive is always 160GB, maybe 159.9GB or 160.1GB, manufacturers don't deviate that much or else it would cause endless qualification problems.

Consumers don't care, but it's a significant headache for OEMs and OEM manufacturers.

Now if Samsung wants to market a 334GB/platter drive to OEMs as 320GB and set it so it's 320GB, that's fine and dandy; if they want to market different drives (based on the exact same mechanicals) to consumers with a different geometry so they get the fully 334GB, then that's all well and good. The headache is otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"OEMs generally write specifications assuming products are equivalent, and test them as such."

Making such bad specification doesn't exclude the fact that OEM makes the mistake. Whether is a mistake in specifying the system or implementing it, it's OEMs fault.

"This is why most makers have drives of roughly the same size-- a 160GB drive is always 160GB, maybe 159.9GB or 160.1GB, manufacturers don't deviate that much or else it would cause endless qualification problems."

Make an application that runs with a 160GB as well as on 250GB drive and it'd probably work on 166GB drive too. But would that be too simple a solution? How come there's thousands and thousands of programs, utilities, boot disks, opeting systems and all kinds of software than can be installed to, or run reading/writing on a drive with pretty much any imaginable capacity, yet OEMs get themselves in trouble because a HDD is less than 5GB over the rated capacity?

I blame it on Greed. You blame it on HDD manufacturers. I don't see a reason to blame it on manufacturers as long as they provide at least the rated capacity. Thousands of software makers manage to make their software compatible with various HDD sizes (but some (especially older) may have trouble with common barriers such as 137GB) even though most of them operate on a lower budget than OEMs. They have the motivation to make software that works with as many systems as possible.

When OEM build a machine, they need to make it compatible with the selected equipment so I assume there's no motivation. Still they could use extra few bucks to make sure it works with variance in components. That way it'd be easier to replace parts later on... but I guess that's a bad thing, as OEM also wants to make it difficult for a homeuser to mess around with the computer. I guess it's more like the attitude that OEM thinks it owns the computer sold, and assumes that when warranty period has expired the customer has to buy OEM relabeled replacement parts instead of buying HDD at half the price from local retail store. It's all about greed and intentional crippling of their own product... or at least it's complete negligence towards caring a sh*t about it.

"Consumers don't care, but it's a significant headache for OEMs and OEM manufacturers."

That headache is passed over to the customer when warranty expires. It's not an infective disease, though, as OEM loses the headache the very same moment. It's more like a transitive disease...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Make an application that runs with a 160GB as well as on 250GB drive and it'd probably work on 166GB drive too. But would that be too simple a solution? How come there's thousands and thousands of programs, utilities, boot disks, opeting systems and all kinds of software than can be installed to, or run reading/writing on a drive with pretty much any imaginable capacity, yet OEMs get themselves in trouble because a HDD is less than 5GB over the rated capacity?

The only issue I'm aware of is related to RAID arrays. If you have an array with drives of 251 gbyte and one dies, you can't replace it with a drive of 250 gbyte. Of course, this is easily avoided by not using the extra space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only issue I'm aware of is related to RAID arrays. If you have an array with drives of 251 gbyte and one dies, you can't replace it with a drive of 250 gbyte. Of course, this is easily avoided by not using the extra space."

Exactly. If I were to build an RAID array, I'd be a complete idiot if I used 253GB drive at full capacity. I'd probably use only 249...250GB to make sure that I can use whatever 250-gigger to replace the dead one.

Again, if I made a stupid mistake like that, I wouldn't be blaming the supplier of 253GB drives for my mistake. Same applies to not making back-ups, etc., etc.

Edited by whiic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9731622-7.html

On Tuesday, Samsung announced three new hard drives: a 1.8-inch, 120GB model, a 3.5-inch 1-terabyte drive and a 2.5-inch, 120GB [160GB?] "hybrid" drive that includes flash memory as well as the traditional spinning platters. And on Monday, Seagate announced a rugged 80GB model that's geared for harsh environments.

Samsung's new F1 Series drive combines three 334MB platters to reach its 1TB capacity. It uses a Serial ATA (SATA) interface with 3Gbps transfer speeds, spins at 7200 revolutions per minute (rpm), includes 32MB of cache and costs about $399. The drives are geared for video recorders, desktop PCs and external storage systems.

On the small end of the spectrum is a 120GB, 1.8-inch drive, the N2 Series. It spins at 4200rpm and is geared for portable music players, mobile phones, cameras and lightweight PCs. It costs $249 and has a parallel ATA interface.

In between is the 2.5-inch, $299 MH80 Series hybrid model. It supplements 160GB of regular drive capacity with 256MB of flash memory. The idea is that the flash memory can often serve users' needs, letting the drive save energy by not spinning the drive platters and saving an estimated 25 minutes of battery life on a typical notebook PC. It also means the computer can boot and load applications faster.

When can we compare the performance of the Hitachi, Seagate, and Samsung 1TB drive?

I'm also interested in Samsung's 120GB 1.8-inch drive, as well as Hitachi's 250GB 2.5-inch drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I blame it on Greed. You blame it on HDD manufacturers. I don't see a reason to blame it on manufacturers as long as they provide at least the rated capacity
I do. Several HDD makers here have delivered us hundreds or thousands of drives of the specified size for a particular product or product, and despite our rev control, change the drive geometry without telling us, or assured us the drive geometry was the same when it, in fact, was not.

Even from 159.99GiB to 160.01GiB is a huge problem when the parts are not the specified requirements.

Yes, I realize much of this is probably driven by beancounters. That still doesn't disqualify manufacturers making drives of target capacities and changing them significantly. For us, 0.02GB can be significant-- our customers generally request revision control of almost everything, because that's the nature of their markets. For Dell or HP consumer PCs, imagine the phone calls when Joe Schmo finds his Pavillion dv9999-12234 has 320GB and his neighbor's identicially spec'ed dv9999-12234 has 334GB...

When can we compare the performance of the Hitachi, Seagate, and Samsung 1TB drive?
Ooooo, sweet, it's been announced.

I'm waiting myself. Well, come mid-July when the ARC-1680 becomes available, my waiting will go from "want" to "need"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would like the 666gb drive, or 667.

I can't afford a 3 platter 1gb drive from Hitachi, Seagate or Samsung.

I've got 3x400gb's now and I'd love to replace them with 3x750's or 3x666's even just as long as it's not more than 500$ US to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"going to be the fastest SATA-drive around"

In STR, probably... for a while. But in real-life performance... we'll see. 7K1000 has now quite a lead over the rest, so there's quite a bit for Samsung to catch up.

The samsung F1 will probably run in circles around the 7K1000 if the platter size is 334GB. 7K1000 only has 200 GB platters. Taking into account that Samsungs transferrate numbers are exaggerated with about 35-55% (like their 400 and 500 GB models) then the Samsung F1 still should have about 40% faster transfer rate then Hitachi 7K1000.

We need a petition page for a 666GB drive.

I'll support the idea :) That will make up an unique marketing item - you never know who will start to fan it!

Anyway, it's also technically a big waste to make 500GB and 750GB drives using 333GB platters...

At the same time 333GB fits for 320GB pretty ok, although why not to offer +13GB bonus capacity also there. Just marketing it still as 320GB drive but with some bright extra sticker "13GB Bonus Capacity!" added on the drive label. Or just let it a hidden surprise for users (just like Hitachi did earlier - its 160GB drives were in fact 164GB).

A 500 GB model with 2 platters and 3 heads would fit nice. But i also hope for a 666 GB (or 650 GB) model and two low profile models at 320 and 160GB (one platter and 1 og 2 heads). Maby also a 800 GB (3 platter 5 heads) model.

Cutting down the capacity a bit is probably just done with making a slightly shorter stroke, meaning they disable the lowest performing part of the platter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The samsung F1 will probably run in circles around the 7K1000 if the platter size is 334GB. 7K1000 only has 200 GB platters. Taking into account that Samsungs transferrate numbers are exaggerated with about 35-55% (like their 400 and 500 GB models) then the Samsung F1 still should have about 40% faster transfer rate then Hitachi 7K1000."

I don't care about STR alone. There's also read & write access time, read & write caching (algorithms and amount in MBs), NCQ implementations, etc. I have no doubt Samsung F1 will fare well in synthetic benchmarks (especially in STR). If we trusted synthetic benchmarks, drives like 7200.10 would be AWESOME!!!!11one1eleven

But in reality... see Performance Database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, is this another paper launch ? I want to see at least some benchmarks. I can also launch a PB drive in the next 100 years......

Edited by dexterboy

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