Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB, Single 500GB Platter

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-19-2009, 09:55 PM
onethreehill

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB 32MB ST31000528AS tested
http://www.pcdvd.com.tw/printthread.php?t=840158
http://translate.google.com.sg/trans...G%26as_qdr%3Dd
02-20-2009, 12:44 AM
onethreehill

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB 32MB ST31000528AS in Japan
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba...1000528as.html
02-21-2009, 01:42 AM
onethreehill

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB Review
CDRinfo
02-21-2009, 03:27 AM
jobol

http://publish.it168.com/2009/0106/images/1303436.JPG
http://publish.it168.com/2008/0328/images/949754.jpg
http://publish.it168.com/2009/0106/images/1303409.JPG

What bugs me about this bencharmk, is that the guy handicaped his 7200.11 because he copied the file from one partition (probably non empty) to his main system partition (C) that has the OS and probably a load of stuff, thus giving the 7200.11 a disadvantage because the file will NOT be copied to head of partition, which is faster.

On the 7200.12, he copied one file from one virgin partition to another, thus having a great read/write performance.

So this benchmark is in no way indicative of real world results unless all variables are known. I think there should be now way the 7200.12 is x2 faster than the 7200.11 under similar real world test conditions.

On another note,

I was wondering....Should I wait for the 1TB 7200.12 or go with a Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.B 1TB (available right now)?
02-22-2009, 02:50 AM
moreempty

would you guys go for a 7200.12 500gb or a WD black 500Gb as a system disc? might go raid0 aswell?

what to do!?
02-22-2009, 03:31 AM
onethreehill

Quote:

Originally Posted by jobol

On another note,

I was wondering....Should I wait for the 1TB 7200.12 or go with a Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.B 1TB (available right now)?

I would wait for the 7200.12 1TB
2 platters vs 3 platters
Higher areal density
02-22-2009, 08:31 AM
EniGmA1987

The 500GB 7200.12 dribe is $60 with free shipping at newegg right now. That is the "18" version though, which is slightly louder but gets just a tad bit more performance.
02-22-2009, 11:17 PM
onethreehill

Quote:

Originally Posted by moreempty

would you guys go for a 7200.12 500gb or a WD black 500Gb as a system disc? might go raid0 aswell?

what to do!?

Good? :D
RAID0 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB, ST3500418AS

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/3199/...eadtestth1.jpg
http://img6.imageshack.us/my.php?ima...eadtestwo0.jpg
Source: Pcsilenzioso.it-forum
02-23-2009, 03:52 AM
Mr.Bean

only 125MB/seg ? :eek: :down: , where are the 160MB/seg posted on the website of Seagate ? :shakes:

7200.11 1,5TB use 4 platters of 375GB density 7.2000 rpm = 120MB/seg.

7200.12 500GB use 1 platter of 500GB, 33% more density, at same 7.2000 rpm, ok ? this is 120 + 33% = 160 MB/seg.

ST3500410AS / 418AS use really 1 platter of 500GB ? :para: or, really spin at 7200 rpm ? :para: in case of positive this 2 questions, why they only have 125 ? :shrug:

:owned:
02-23-2009, 04:04 AM
sabe

11.3ms access times? Does RAID0 help access times that much?
02-23-2009, 04:19 AM
Mr.Bean

access time is not dependent of raid, is a limit of individual drive.

4ms initially, 25ms in the end, average 11ms

only if you limit the total capacity of single drive or raid array increase the performance of average access time, because you leaning more to the faster zone
02-23-2009, 06:04 AM
mstp2009

Review is in progress on the 1TB. We've a ton of stuff come in for review and are backlogged.
02-23-2009, 07:13 AM
sabe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Bean

access time is not dependent of raid, is a limit of individual drive.

4ms initially, 25ms in the end, average 11ms

only if you limit the total capacity of single drive or raid array increase the performance of average access time, because you leaning more to the faster zone

I just noticed the last bench posted is a 338gb RAID0, no wonder the access times are low :/ That's kinda misleading isn't it.
02-24-2009, 06:05 AM
sabe

So I decided to get another one, and 'cheat' with a small RAID0 as well. My OS is actually sitting on the array, so it might be a little poorer than it should be :)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/...cacce6.jpg?v=0
02-24-2009, 07:08 AM
Mr.Bean

CPU Usage -1%

:wierd:
02-24-2009, 07:14 AM
sabe

Clearly I managed to harness my hard drive's processor :D
02-24-2009, 07:20 AM
Mr.Bean

my 4x 500GB 7200.10 RAID0 Slice 32GB

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6...4xraid0pr1.png

i win ;)
02-24-2009, 08:14 AM
Baron_Davis

How come 2 of them get 200 and 4 get 300?
02-24-2009, 08:23 AM
sabe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron_Davis

How come 2 of them get 200 and 4 get 300?

Perhaps its the ICH10R limiting it... :)
02-24-2009, 02:57 PM
mrcape

No Raid0 SSD wins. These are storage drives lol.
02-25-2009, 12:12 AM
Mr.Bean

LOL xD

see above -> 4x 500GB 7200.10 !!

4x 80MB/s = 320 MB/s
02-27-2009, 11:27 PM
onethreehill

Quote:

Originally Posted by pa9797

I m using my 1.5TB HDD results as a base reference:

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/b...31500341AS.png

The 7200.12 @ RAID 0

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/b..._Raid_0_-2.png

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/b...1Feb272125.gif

Single 7200.12

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/b...T3500410AS.png

Source: Hardwarezone Forum
02-27-2009, 11:32 PM
[XC] Lead Head

Holy crap, access time on the 7200.12 is ridiculously slow! Seems like that would kill off much of the benefit of increased data rate. My 80GB 7200.1 not .10 manages a better access time then that!
02-28-2009, 03:13 AM
onethreehill

Quote:

Originally Posted by EniGmA1987

The 500GB 7200.12 dribe is $60 with free shipping at newegg right now. That is the "18" version though, which is slightly louder but gets just a tad bit more performance.

The "10" version is $60 with free shipping now
02-28-2009, 04:42 AM
hollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head

Holy crap, access time on the 7200.12 is ridiculously slow! Seems like that would kill off much of the benefit of increased data rate. My 80GB 7200.1 not .10 manages a better access time then that!

the first 10% of the drive is nice, <10ms & >100MB/s :D

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page