Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB Review
CDRinfo
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB Review
CDRinfo
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)?
Last edited by jobol; 02-21-2009 at 01:33 PM.
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!?
I would wait for the 7200.12 1TBOriginally Posted by jobol
2 platters vs 3 platters
Higher areal density
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.
Rig 1:
ASUS P8Z77-V
Intel i5 3570K @ 4.75GHz
16GB of Team Xtreme DDR-2666 RAM (11-13-13-35-2T)
Nvidia GTX 670 4GB SLI
Rig 2:
Asus Sabertooth 990FX
AMD FX-8350 @ 5.6GHz
16GB of Mushkin DDR-1866 RAM (8-9-8-26-1T)
AMD 6950 with 6970 bios flash
Yamakasi Catleap 2B overclocked to 120Hz refresh rate
Audio-GD FUN DAC unit w/ AD797BRZ opamps
Sennheiser PC350 headset w/ hero mod
Good?
RAID0 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 500 GB, ST3500418AS
Source: Pcsilenzioso.it-forum
Last edited by onethreehill; 02-22-2009 at 11:27 PM.
only 125MB/seg ?
, where are the 160MB/seg posted on the website of Seagate ?
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 ?or, really spin at 7200 rpm ?
11.3ms access times? Does RAID0 help access times that much?
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
Review is in progress on the 1TB. We've a ton of stuff come in for review and are backlogged.
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.
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
CPU Usage -1%
Clearly I managed to harness my hard drive's processor
my 4x 500GB 7200.10 RAID0 Slice 32GB
i win
How come 2 of them get 200 and 4 get 300?
Perhaps its the ICH10R limiting it...
No Raid0 SSD wins. These are storage drives lol.
LOL xD
see above -> 4x 500GB 7200.10 !!
4x 80MB/s = 320 MB/s
Source: Hardwarezone ForumI m using my 1.5TB HDD results as a base reference:
The 7200.12 @ RAID 0
Single 7200.12
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!
Fold for XS!
You know you want to
The "10" version is $60 with free shipping now
the first 10% of the drive is nice, <10ms & >100MB/s
Last edited by hollo; 02-28-2009 at 04:46 AM.
Hardwarezone ForumSince I have rave reviews for the 7200.12 , I thought I need to satisfy myself that the WD Black is as good so I went to get one and try.
At SRP of $149, this baby is expensive in term of per Gb. This works out to be $0,23 per GB vs Seagate 7200.12 is $0.18 per GB.
Do note however in terms of warranty this baby has full 5 years from WD. Seagate only offer 3 years for the 7200.12
As compared to the 7200.12, the Black is fat:
In this department 7200.12 is slimmer. This is due to the single platter Vs I think 2 for the WD.
Temperature this baby is much hotter. I recorded an average of 40d vs 7200.12's 30d
Noise.... Haiz , sad to say this baby is not quiet when seek. However to be fair the noise is muted. I still prefer to 7200.12's Cool and Quiet.
In terms of access speed. This baby is fast. Bootup , surfing is much faster than 7200.12
However in term of burst speed and transfer rate 7200.12 is well ahead:
Last edited by onethreehill; 03-03-2009 at 01:56 AM.
he mentions a few times that the 7200.12 are nice and quiet, then someone says..might be AAM making it so nice and quiet + wrecking the seek timesit could be but is still fast visiblyprobably trade off between silence and seek speed... my guess is AAM in operation..
Last edited by hollo; 03-01-2009 at 09:36 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks