Storage Forums: Seagate Cheetah 10K.7 - Storage Forums

Jump to content

Advertisement
Home
Storage Reviews
Enterprise
Leaderboard
Reference Guides
Forums
Reliability Survey
About SR

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Seagate Cheetah 10K.7

#1 User is offline   Eugene 

  • Administrator
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 1,057
  • Joined: 28-December 01

Posted 01 December 2004 - 07:37 PM

Seagate's seventh-generation 10,000 RPM Cheetah will be its last as the firm prepares to try and guide the industry to a smaller 2.5" form factor. What kind of sunset does the Cheetah 10K.7 leave behind? Join StorageReview as we take a look at the final version of a true classic!

Seagate Cheetah 10K.7 Review

If you would like to remove this advertisement, please register.

#2 User is offline   Maxtor storage 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 1,494
  • Joined: 06-January 02

Posted 02 December 2004 - 12:40 AM

Man, what is going on with the Design team. Why are the new Seagate drives lacking on performance...

#3 User is offline   hddmaster 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 14-May 04

Posted 02 December 2004 - 09:17 AM

Yow. What a dog... :o

#4 User is offline   honold 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 6,247
  • Joined: 29-December 01

Posted 02 December 2004 - 12:05 PM

come on dog, they deserved a clear rip for this product in the conclusion
silhouettes and shadows
watch the revolution
no more free steps to heaven

#5 User is offline   continuum 

  • Mod
  • Group: Mod
  • Posts: 3,270
  • Joined: 31-December 01

Posted 02 December 2004 - 01:07 PM

Interesting...

Benchmarks across the board for the latest drives aren't looking too hot, at least not with SR's tests and testbed. Does anyone have any other benchmarks to look at-- e.g. from Tech Report or anyone?

Time to wait for Atlas 10k V results. Looks like I may pull the trigger on an older 10K.6 if I can still get them new and cheap (enough) for another data storage drive...

#6 User is offline   Olaf van der Spek 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 1,958
  • Joined: 14-November 02

Posted 02 December 2004 - 01:53 PM

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2004...300007LW_1.html

> In the following tests, the MAU3147 will be compared against the following drives for the following reasons:

MAU3147?

#7 User is offline   Chewy509 

  • Group: Patron
  • Posts: 1,426
  • Joined: 24-November 02

Posted 02 December 2004 - 09:34 PM

Glad to see I'm not the only one disappointed in this drive... I guess I'll stick with my humble 10K.6 for the time being.
"SCSI is not magic. There are fundamental technical reasons why you have to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain every now and then." John F. Woods

#8 User is offline   stone cold steve austin 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 938
  • Joined: 12-September 03

Posted 03 December 2004 - 08:33 AM

One thing i don't get, is how come like the past three reviews, no drive has gotten the covetted "safe buy" blue thingy attached to their drive. How come. Are prices too high, is that why!!!...

SCSA

#9 User is offline   Spod 

  • Guru > me > newbie
  • Group: Patron
  • Posts: 1,970
  • Joined: 06-November 02

Posted 04 December 2004 - 03:59 AM

Perhaps Eugene is hoping/expecting that forthcoming drives will prove more worthy of the award. After all, "Safe Buy" is a relative thing, and if (for example) the new Maxtor drives don't suffer the shortcomings of their Seagate counterparts, and someone was looking for which drive SR recommends, it wouldn't help to have awarded both brands a Safe Buy award.

Of course, Eugene can answer your question best, SCSA.
If I'm wrong, please tell me why. I'm trying to help, but I'm here to learn, too.
See my profile for PC specs. I do not practise what I preach.

#10 User is offline   dglevy 

  • Member
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 05-February 06

Post icon  Posted 06 February 2006 - 02:08 PM

i don't get it. how can the performance of a 10K rpm drive with avg access time of 8 ms be the same as that of a 7.2K rpm drive with avg access time of 13.7 ms???

Single User SR Office DriveMark 2002:
  • 8.0 ms, 73 GB, 8 MB buffer, Cheetah 10K.7 ($186 street) = 407
  • 13.7 ms, 250 GB, 8 MB buffer, Maxtor MaXLine Plus II ATA-133 ($94 street) = 407
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users