ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components
Smartphones & tablets
Systems
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES

Seagate 7200.9 500GB: Mouthwatering Benchmarks

 by Purav Sanghani on October 24, 2005 12:05 AM EST
46 Comments | Add A Comment
46 Comments
SYSMark 2004 Performance Summary

These scores represent the overall performance of each component of SYSMark 2004.

SYSMark 2004

Seagate comes in behind the other three 3.0Gbps drives in overall Internet Content Creation performance at 205-206 ticks on the graph. We are not putting much emphasis on this test anymore because of its CPU intensive nature. Instead, we are focusing more on the Office Productivity test suite.

To recap, here's what happens in the entire Office Productivity suite:
"In this scenario, the office productivity user creates a marketing presentation and supporting documents for a new product. The user receives email containing a collection of documents in a compressed file. The user reviews his email and updates his calendar while a virus checking software scans the system. The corporate web site is viewed and the user begins creating the collateral documents. The user also accesses a database and runs some queries. A collection of documents are compressed. The queries' results are imported into a spreadsheet and used to generate graphical charts. The user then transcribes a document. Once the document has all the necessary pieces in place, the user changes it into a portable format for easy and secure distribution. The user edits and adds elements to a slide show template. Finally, the user looks at the results of his work (both the slide show and the portable document) in an Internet browser."

SYSMark 2004

SYSMark 2004

Seagate's performance here is not the best. Overall, SYSMark 2004 rates it at 186-187 marks, which brings it half way down the list and far from the other 3.0Gbps drives and just barely shows improvement over the 400GB 7200.8 unit.

Overall System Performance - SYSMark 2004 WinBench 99 - Transfer Rate Test
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • jeffrey - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    I agree, the 160gb would have been a good review due to the platter density. The 400gb would have been a good review due to the combination of higher density and higher cache.

    A true Anandtech Quality article needs not only to be a report, but an inquisition.

    Great review idea:
    160gb drive 160gb platters 8mb cache
    400gb drive 133gb platters 16mb cache
    500gb drive 125gb platters 16mb cache

    The way I see it the perfect follow-up is already 1/3 done.

  • Nighteye2 - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    Did anyone else notices how the load times in bold print for both Word 2003 and Photoshop CS are not the minimum load times of all drives tested?

  • Lord Zado - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    Yeah, I noticed that as well. Was coming here to make that same comment.

  • PuravSanghani - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    I got a bit happy with the bold button with the Sox in the World Series! This has been fixed.

  • Lonyo - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    It says evaluation version for non commercial use only in the SS of the HD Tach titelbar, are you guys doing osmething illegal?
    I'd call Anandtech a commercial venture :P

  • mongoosesRawesome - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    Good eyes.

  • Basilisk - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    Last paragraph of article: why on Earth is "cost-effective" linked to M$ Retail Management System Solutions? Or, for that matter, why is "Western-Digital" linked to Yahoo!! Shopping (as opposed to AT Shopping) in a sentence unrelated to pricing? Curiouser and curiouser....

  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    It's some ad thing called intelitext. It sucks. Click here to disable it:

    http://www.anandtech.com/siteinfo.aspx?intelli=y">http://www.anandtech.com/siteinfo.aspx?intelli=y

    Kristopher

  • kd4yum - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link

    Thanks, Kris

  • Anemone - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    I've had dozens of WD drives over the years and only 2 (1 was 10+ years old, the other a 6mo old raptor) have ever gone bad. I've killed several IBM drives and a couple Maxtor's along the way.

    The raptor is really noticeably faster in day to day use than any other drive I've seen in action. The tests really don't tell the entire story. With several of the drives in my systems virus scans have gone from a couple hours down to 20-30min. It's really that noticeable. What I'd like to see on that front however is for WD to up the drive to 148mb, bring us a genuine native NCQ, and SATA II. The last two features just to bring it up to date, since I'm not yet convinced they make a stunning difference in performance. SATA II may be a technology that will serve better when all drives are 10k standard and raptor types are 15k, meaning when the native ability of the drive itself begins to get a bit better.

    Thanks for the detailed review!
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now