Samsung F1 320GB HDD test!

[Starscream]

It's actually the same platter in all of the F1 models, but I guess you technically correct if we're to really drag it out.

//Andreas

actualy its not.

The 320GB, 640 and 1TB version have these new 334GB platters.

the 250GB, 500GB and 750GB use the old 250GB platters.

So if u wanna get these speeds get the 320, 640 or 1TB version.

[NH|Delph1]

actualy its not.

The 320GB, 640 and 1TB version have these new 334GB platters.

the 250GB, 500GB and 750GB use the old 250GB platters.

So if u wanna get these speeds get the 320, 640 or 1TB version.

Even though that makes more sense, that's not what they're saying in the Tech Report review.

//Andreas

[Lightman]

Even though that makes more sense, that's not what they're saying in the Tech Report review.

//Andreas

And from my test I can conclude TechReprot is right
250GB/platter drive can't sustain 107MB/s read transfer rates @7200RPM, besides scores showed in first post are perfect match for what I'm getting with my drive

[Starscream]

Even though that makes more sense, that's not what they're saying in the Tech Report review.

//Andreas

i know but on various forums people that own the 750GB version and the 1TB version compaired read and write speeds and found out that the 750s are all slower then the 1TBs.

Also samsungs own site doesnt say that all F1s use the 334GB platters but say something like upto 334GB platters

[Praz]

Also samsungs own site doesnt say that all F1s use the 334GB platters but say something like upto 334GB platters

http://www.samsung.com/global/busine...eet_200708.pdf

[Holmer]

actualy its not.

The 320GB, 640 and 1TB version have these new 334GB platters.

the 250GB, 500GB and 750GB use the old 250GB platters.

So if u wanna get these speeds get the 320, 640 or 1TB version.

As Andreas also pointet out: http://techreport.com/articles.x/14200/1

"Given its use of 334GB platters, you would think Samsung would offer two additional F1 variants to accompany the terabyte model: a 334GB model using a single platter and a two-platter model with 668GB of capacity. And you would be wrong. Instead, Samsung is sticking to the industry-standard capacities embraced by its competitors, extending the F1 down to 750, 500, and 320GB. It's hard to see the rationale behind such a move. Those lower capacities leave a respective 250, 168, and 14GB of unused platter capacity on the table, which strikes us as unnecessarily wasteful."

All the Spinpoint F1 use 334GB platters, they just disable some part of each platter. Can someone please clear this up?
Therefore I will also ask if anyone have seen a review of the 750GB Spinpoint F1 (I have to decide between this and the WD 750GB RE2).

[MaxxxRacer]

As Andreas also pointet out: http://techreport.com/articles.x/14200/1

"Given its use of 334GB platters, you would think Samsung would offer two additional F1 variants to accompany the terabyte model: a 334GB model using a single platter and a two-platter model with 668GB of capacity. And you would be wrong. Instead, Samsung is sticking to the industry-standard capacities embraced by its competitors, extending the F1 down to 750, 500, and 320GB. It's hard to see the rationale behind such a move. Those lower capacities leave a respective 250, 168, and 14GB of unused platter capacity on the table, which strikes us as unnecessarily wasteful."

All the Spinpoint F1 use 334GB platters, they just disable some part of each platter. Can someone please clear this up?
Therefore I will also ask if anyone have seen a review of the 750GB Spinpoint F1 (I have to decide between this and the WD 750GB RE2).

I'm gonna say the reason they have so much wasted space is because they have a high plater failure rate and use the partially bad platters and just disable all of the bad sectors. This way they can sell potentially junk platters and increase profits. Kind of like with the video cards with disabled quads.

[Starscream]

As Andreas also pointet out: http://techreport.com/articles.x/14200/1

"Given its use of 334GB platters, you would think Samsung would offer two additional F1 variants to accompany the terabyte model: a 334GB model using a single platter and a two-platter model with 668GB of capacity. And you would be wrong. Instead, Samsung is sticking to the industry-standard capacities embraced by its competitors, extending the F1 down to 750, 500, and 320GB. It's hard to see the rationale behind such a move. Those lower capacities leave a respective 250, 168, and 14GB of unused platter capacity on the table, which strikes us as unnecessarily wasteful."

All the Spinpoint F1 use 334GB platters, they just disable some part of each platter. Can someone please clear this up?
Therefore I will also ask if anyone have seen a review of the 750GB Spinpoint F1 (I have to decide between this and the WD 750GB RE2).

if all the F1 drives have the 334GB platters then why are they coming with a 250, 320, 500, 640, 750 and 1TB model?

further i have actualy seen benches of the 1TB and 750GB model on a dutch forum and the gap is considerable (all users had the same gap).

Further tech report nowhere has any info or proof on that all F1 HDs use the same platters its simply a conclusion that they themselves made.


praz
HAve you actualy read the pdf file urselves. i guess not cause then you would know that the pdf file talks only about the 1TB HD and not the entire f1 lineup.
The entire document they talk about THIS HD. and they keep compairing the F1 1TB to other 500GB HDs. Further in the key features bit they list the specs of the 1TB disc.

That document does have the name F1 Datasheet wich implies that its a docu about the F1 lineup but instead its just about the 1TB disc.



Dont get me wrong this entire confusion about 250 and 334GB platters has happened on many forums and many people thought that all the F1 HDs use these new platters but they dont and samsung doesnt want to inform people properly about it.

SImple logic
just compaire benches between the 750 and 1TB version and you will notice a considerable gap. further compaire the prices of the 1TB and 750GB HD.
That huge price diffrence (overhere the 1tb costs 195 and the 750 costs 105 euro). So if both the 1TB and 750GB use the same 3x334 platters then how can it be that the 1TB is almost twice as expensive.

Just to end the confusion click this link
Its a dutch forum but thats not important, on the first page ul see a bench of aa 750GB and a 1TB F1 HD. Just check the diffrence.

http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/.../1259539/0//f1


Few months ago i also saw the impressive 1TB scores and wanted to buy one.
Then i found a few forums were people were discussing the diffrent scores between the 750 and 1TB and the opinion on all those forums were that the 750GB musst use lower density platters.

maybe im wrong but up until now every review ive read showed that they dont perform the same. and i also havent seen a single word from Samsung about claiming that they use the same platters. the entire samsung site is vague about it and only talks in half assed terms like UP TO.

[Praz]

praz
HAve you actualy read the pdf file urselves. i guess not cause then you would know that the pdf file talks only about the 1TB HD and not the entire f1 lineup.
The entire document they talk about THIS HD. and they keep compairing the F1 1TB to other 500GB HDs. Further in the key features bit they list the specs of the 1TB disc.

That document does have the name F1 Datasheet wich implies that its a docu about the F1 lineup but instead its just about the 1TB disc.

No. I didn't read any of it. Just did a Google search and posted the first link that was found.

It's doubtful a manufacture, in a pdf specifically referring to the 334GB platers, would list a family of drives in a table and show the same performance specifications to be the same across the line if the drives were not the same.

Either wat really means nothing to me. Don't have time myself to waste in a thread that in reality means very little.

[Starscream]

No. I didn't read any of it. Just did a Google search and posted the first link that was found.

It's doubtful a manufacture, in a pdf specifically referring to the 334GB platers, would list a family of drives in a table and show the same performance specifications to be the same across the line if the drives were not the same.

Either wat really means nothing to me. Don't have time myself to waste in a thread that in reality means very little.

and you stil havent read it.
in the PDF they DONT talk about the F1 lineup they purely talk about the F1 1TB.
That you dont find this thread interesting is ofc your choice but why post PDF files inhere to prove some point whne you havent even read the file urselves

[NH|Delph1]

http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/.../1259539/0//f1

Thank you!

//Andreas

[Starscream]

Thank you!

//Andreas

i know those 2 benches arent the best. and the 750GB has a dip at start but every user on that forum gets similar results. Further forums like storagereview etc have the same idea on their forums.

further to respond to praz, i know this isnt the most interesting topic but i just want to prevent that people see a 1TB review (wich is amazing) and then goes and buys a 750GB cause its cheaper but stil expects 1TB like performence. The 750GB is a good HD especialy for that price but it isnt as good as the 1TB.az

@Praz
read again. it says MAX. 334Gb per platter wich doesnt mean that it uses 334GB platters but can be using everything upto 334GB platters.
and depending on wich samsung spinpoint site you visit it makes that claim with the entire F1 lineup or only part of it.

[Praz]

@Praz
read again. it says MAX. 334Gb per platter wich doesnt mean that it uses 334GB platters but can be using everything upto 334GB platters.
and depending on wich samsung spinpoint site you visit it makes that claim with the entire F1 lineup or only part of it.

The specifications for the 1TB drive says exactly the same thing so I guess we don't know what platters it uses either.