Sign in to follow this  
Davin

Seagate Cheetah 15K.3

Recommended Posts

Well the performance is definitely state of the art. The numbers are simply awesome. If I have one criticism of an otherwise excellent review is that there is no mention of the former generation's irritating clicking noise (a.k.a. - "Martians") from the heads moving to prevent heat damage. Is it present in this generation?

One reason I sold my first generation X15 was that I just could not tolerate that mind numbing noise. I'd hate to buy a third generation X15 just to find out it was still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My head aches... drives like this makes you feel the awe-inspiring levels of current HDD technology.

Kudos to Seagate for taunting the jungle again... long live the Cheetah king!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eugene/Davin:

Why do you continue to put gigantic images of the top of the drive in your reviews? The "small" thumbnail in your review is very oversized, the full size version is unbelievable. This must be a major drain on your costly bandwidth? Surely more aggressive compression could be used?

Your X15 is still purring nicely Bill :) Unfortunately I now have to turn the computer off when going to bed, the noise of the three 15K drives plus the dual Deltas make quite a racket. Perhaps a KVM switch is in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice review guys.

The 15.3 shows how out of touch IBM has really become - the 36Z15 is totally uncompetitive compared to even the previous 2 generation Seagates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene
There is an error in the review, the feedback link goes to this:

http://forums.storagereview.net/viewtopic.php?t=54946

Which doesn't exist.

Thanks for the catch... just fixed it.

When it comes to using PNG vs JPG, I have to defer the question to davin. I didn't have a problem with JPG yet Davin (a while ago) gave me multiple reasons why we should go PNG... public domain and lossless being two of them, I think.

Regards,

Eugene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When it comes to using PNG vs JPG, I have to defer the question to davin. I didn't have a problem with JPG yet Davin (a while ago) gave me multiple reasons why we should go PNG... public domain and lossless being two of them, I think. 

Smaller thumbnails would benefit modem users, but please keep the full-size images the way they are. Kudos for using superior PNG format. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL... I didn't understand what all the fuss was about until I checked the file sizes of those images. My god that is sheer inefficiency! 293 KB for the thumbnail and 1.15 MB for the larger picture? Ludicrous. (and no, I'm not talking about the rapper) You might as well use BMP or TIFF instead; it would be about the same size, LOL... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, is IBM getting its a*s handed to them by Seagate in the 15k drive class. It's not even close. In fact, IBM decided to go with Seagate for their drives in IBM's eServer xSeries enterprise server line. How embarrassing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man, is IBM getting its a*s handed to them by Seagate in the 15k drive class. It's not even close. In fact, IBM decided to go with Seagate for their drives in IBM's eServer xSeries enterprise server line. How embarrassing...

IBM has long kept their drive businesses separate from their computer lines. They found that they could make more money by using drives from the company with the lowest bid. So you will see any number of different drives in IBM computers. Their desktop computer division uses Maxtor, Seagate, and IBM drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL... I didn't understand what all the fuss was about until I checked the file sizes of those images. My god that is sheer inefficiency! 293 KB for the thumbnail and 1.15 MB for the larger picture? Ludicrous. (and no, I'm not talking about the rapper) You might as well use BMP or TIFF instead; it would be about the same size, LOL... :)

Indeed. I don't know anything about the .png format but it looks like the settings used? are making the .png version larger than the original! Superior format my bottom :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current PNG is a good alternative to BMP, but inappropriate for large photos. Davin is right about it being a preferred standard, but you need JPEG/MPEG compression for photos (as opposed to graphics).

I think the large photo has now been pulled. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did the test and converted the huge 1.15MB .PNG into .JPG and there was no noticeable difference (except for the file size : a scarce 93.2KB for the latter). Text was still readable on the label, just as much as the original. Color gradient were ok too. There's just no rational reason to use the fat PNG format for online pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so when does the leaderboard get updated?

Yes, please enlighten us.

I'm guessing the info everyone wants to know now, is if this review sample way acquired from Hypermicro, and if so, when can we get our hands on one?

You guessed correctly.

are there prices for these ? and expected delivery date?

I would guess, based on the prices for recent drives, to expect pricing approximating 900.00 USD for the larger drive, with street prices a couple hundred less. But that is merely an uninformed guess.

The performance of this new 15K.3 drive is indeed impressive. I expect to finally make use of my Adaptec Ultra/160 card...I was stupid to purchase it when I did. There was no drive compelling enough to make me part with the required cash...but we finally have a winner. I cannot wait for them to start shipping these hotties!

With a lower idle noise rating than the IBM Deskstar 120GXP, and 5.9 degrees Celsius higher than said drive, it is finally worth it to get one of these as it will not adversely affect thermal or auditory characteristics of my rig.

I am very excited for this to ship!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would guess, based on the prices for recent drives, to expect pricing approximating 900.00 USD for the larger drive, with street prices a couple hundred less.  But that is merely an uninformed guess.

$900? No way! More like $700 or whereabouts. Note that almost all 73GB 10K drives are selling on Hypermicro for less than $500. There can't be that much gap.

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PNG-Crush

Davin is right, there is no reason to use the lossy JPEG format.

But he could certainly use png-crush.

The original PNG image size:

1.1MB

After using PNG-Crush on the image:

644K

Using lossy GIF image:

304K

Using lossy JPEG:

(I used `convert' from ImageMagick on the PNG here)

49K

PNG is fine, lossless and is superior to jpeg or gif, but use compression on it.

Learn about PNG here:

http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngintro.html

http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapcv.html

http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1.1MB png is an outlier... Eugene, check the camera. :?

[www@stage benchimages]$ ls -ltr *.png | gawk '/ +/ {x+=$5; print $5/1024 "kb  t" $9} END { print "nNum files: " NR "nAverage K-bytes: " x/NR/1024 }' | tail -n15

182.203kb       WD800JB_top_small.png

344.109kb       WD800JB_back.png

681.279kb       WD800JB_top.png

157.891kb       ST373453LW_back.png

2.09668kb       ST373453LW_rst_small.png

5.8125kb        ST373453LW_rst.png

40.791kb        ST373453LW_back_small.png

3.3457kb        ST373453LW_str.png

2.13477kb       ST373453LW_wst_small.png

5.96484kb       ST373453LW_wst.png

286.079kb       ST373453LW_top_small.png

1127.39kb       ST373453LW_top.png           <--- Doh!



Num files: 130

Average K-bytes: 104.856

[www@stage benchimages]$

This FAQ provides a good introduction to png features:

http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngintro.html

Read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it. It said:

Note that for transmission of finished truecolor images--especially photographic ones--JPEG is almost always a better choice. Although JPEG's lossy compression can introduce visible artifacts, these can be minimized, and the savings in file size even at high quality levels is much better than is generally possible with a lossless format like PNG.
Current PNG is a good alternative to BMP, but inappropriate for large photos. Davin is right about it being a preferred standard, but you need JPEG/MPEG compression for photos (as opposed to graphics).

We're just surprised that you guys are paying so little for traffic, that you find even a 680kB image acceptable (WD800JB). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll conceed...

From here on out, we're going to use the JPEG image format. We've done some testing and using very light JPEG compression, there is almost no noticable difference in image quality and the file sizes are much smaller so I see no reason why we shouldn't switch formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found JPEGs with a compression value of between 10 and 20 worked very well for my purposes.

Although I like .TGA's more than anything ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got off the phone with Dan at Hypermicro who says it will be 2-3 months before the new Cheetah 15.3k goes into full production and that they will not be carrying them until then. Seagate sales support says the drive will not be in full production until October. Does that mean we are going to have to wait that long to find the drive?

:cry:

Jeff

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
Sign in to follow this