Seagate and Western Digital 1TB Drives: Improved and Green
by Dave Robinet on November 26, 2007 7:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
WinRAR
We updated our WinRAR test methodology. We are now using a larger and more comprehensive directory structure (3 gigabytes, 302 files and 22 folders), and are using the "store" mode to eliminate the CPU as being a bottleneck in our testing. We repeat each test three times to ensure consistency. Our first WinRAR test takes our sample directory from the source WD Raptor drive and puts it in an archive on the test device. This is a good representation of a practical "write" test of the test device. We then take the newly created archive, and uncompress it on the same drive. The test therefore becomes a combination of read, write, and seek performance.
This is a very interesting result. As expected, the Samsung T166 turns in strong results compared to both the Western Digital and Seagate devices, but the real story is how poorly the Seagate 7200.11 performs in the second test. This is a real concern, as the pattern has been clear and consistent when it comes to tests involving both read and write operations. The Seagate 7200.11 clearly has a serious handicap in this regard. The Samsung T166 showed itself in previous tests to be an above-average performer, but even the Western Digital Caviar bests the Seagate by nearly 20%.
Nero Recode
Our Nero Recode test takes our Office Space DVD folder and shrinks it down to fit onto a single 4.5GB DVD. This test is highly dependent on the CPU, however, and given our newer test bed, previous results aren't directly comparable with these benchmarks.
Given earlier results, the fact that the drives are separated by only 5 seconds from top to bottom means that this test is more about stressing system components (i.e. the CPU) than working out the storage medium, although a fast hard drive is still valuable.
Company of Heroes
Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts is the latest installment in Relic's wildly popular WWII real time strategy series. For our test, we load the first campaign level (Wolfheze) and measure the time it takes to display the "press any key" message. To ensure test consistency, we are using the base installation of Opposing Fronts without keeping current with Relic's frequent patching.
Here we see a narrowing of the performance results, though the drives continue to show results consistent with our earlier benchmarks. The T166 edges the Seagate drive very slightly, while the Western Digital Caviar GP trails the pack.
Supreme Commander
Supreme Commander is the second of our gaming benchmarks for this article. For this test, we measure the time it takes to load the first Campaign level, starting the timer when we click the launch icon and ending when the commander is visible and stationary on the ground.
Our benchmark shows that there is very little load time differential between the fastest and slowest hard drives tested. Games such as this remain a difficult task for conventional hard drives, as they rely to such a large degree on seek times. The results, however, continue to rank the drives as before.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
View All Comments
Luminair - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link
"Operating System Stated Capacity"Lets be clear so maybe you can be clear in the next article.
The IEC, IEEE, CPIM, and NIST define Giga (G) as 1,000,000,000 or one billion.
The same standards organizations define Gibi (Gi) as 1,073,741,824.
As such, by standard definitions, these hard drives are in fact 1000GB, or 1000 gigabytes.
Your "Operating System Stated Capacity" really means "Windows Explorer Capacity". Other operating systems don't get it wrong like Windows does. So if you report this wrong information at all, you should make the truth known -- that Windows is well known to WRONGLY report GiB as GB (and MiB for MB and so on).
Those drives have 1000 gigabytes of space. Windows Explorer and solid state memory companies report the space incorrectly.
Luminair - Friday, November 30, 2007 - link
These guys get it right :) http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=browser&ar...">http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=bro...&ima...valherumk2 - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link
Looks like another review of the 7200.11 drive where it appears the reviewer didn't remove the jumper limiting it to SATA 1. Interface bandwidth burst rate is over 200MB/s on my 7200.11 with the jumper removed.Zap - Thursday, November 29, 2007 - link
That's also the first thing that came to my mine... "dude forgot to remove the jumper."Zap - Thursday, November 29, 2007 - link
That's also the first thing that came to my mine... "dude forgot to remove the jumper."100proof - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
Dave, is there a reason that Samsung's 1TB drivewas not included in this review? The drive is
difficult to obtain in the US but is available in
other countries at this point in time. Tomshardware
has already posted a review, and there is also
discussion taking place on storagereview.com
Tomshardware Review of Samsung F1 1TB
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_ove...">http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_ove...
Storagereview discussion of F1 Series
http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopi...">http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopi...
Dave Robinet - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link
It's a matter of availability, not of lack of interest. We do like the latest Samsung offerings - they simply didn't have a drive shipped to us in the lab in time for the article.If they get us a 1TB drive for us to have a look at, then we'll gladly put it in a future article.
Thanks for reading!
quanta - Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - link
In the meantime, Tom's hardware did the Samsung Spinpoint F1 review[1], which showed it has great non-server performance. In fact, it outruns WD Raptor WD150ADFD in some tests. Power consumption is between 'cuda 7200.11 and Caviar GP.[1] http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_ove...">http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_ove...
piasabird - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
You get a lower overall price per Gig by using two 500 gb drives.Googer - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
With a pair of 500GB hard drives, you do not get it in a single volume, power consumption increases, RAID 0 decreases reliability and increases error possibilities.The fact that it takes two drive bays is a sore thumb to those who build small form factor multi-media systems with only one drive bay that will also funtion as a Digtal Video Recorder.
I should also add, this "GREEN" drive is ideal for a TiVO upgrade due to it's large size, quiet operation, low heat, and noise output.