Seagate 7200.10 vs Western Digital Raptor

I have read a few threads now where people have advised to purchase a Seagate 7200.10 series drive instead of an ADFD 74GB or 150GB Raptor. After looking up numerous reviews, I am very confused by these statements.

First, a review from StorageReview on their 750GB ES model, designed for enterprise level applications and RAID.

http://www.storagereview.net/article...50640NS_1.html

In quite a few parts of this test, the WD5000YS defeats or runs even with the Seagate. In one or two tests, it even falls to the bottom of the pack below the drive it is succeeding.

Next, an Anandtech review on the normal 750GB model showing the same thing, that the WD5000YS defeats the Seagate 7200.10 750GB in quite a few situations. This review also includes a 150GB Raptor which appears to dominate just about every benchmark.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=2760&p=1

In the Anandtech review they even note that the 7200.10 almost gets as noisy as the raptor. That completely pushes this drive out of it's segment in my opinion. I wouldn't use a storage drive in a desktop that's as loud as a raptor. Reading some of the forum posts on storagereview.com seem to confirm this being the case, for assorted sizes. Perhaps this is personal preference, but to me the sound of Western Digital 7200RPM drives in general is better to me. They can be louder at idle than their competitors, but they don't get much louder than their idle noise for reads/writes.

Another review from techreport.com seems to echo what these two reviews above suggest, also including the 74GB raptor.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...0/index.x?pg=1

So, my question is - what is backing up all these statements that 7200.10 drives are superior or equal to raptors?

Also, perpendicular recording is immediately touted as the reasoning behind this performance increase. Where is the logic behind this?

I'd have to say that my 7200.10's are somewhat equal to the 74GB Raptor, but not the 150GB models. I've ran HDTach and SiSoft Sandra for comparisions, and they are no slouch. The error in the comparision between the two sites is that Storage Review is reviewing a Near-Line drive (ES), where Anandtech is reviewing the 7200.10 which only does perpendicular recording and NCQ. The 7200.10's are not Near-Line drives.

Originally Posted by fireluxx

The error in the comparision between the two sites is that Storage Review is reviewing a Near-Line drive (ES), where Anandtech is reviewing the 7200.10 which only does perpendicular recording and NCQ. The 7200.10's are not Near-Line drives.

I understood this when I wrote the post, and that doesn't change the order of the performance of the drives in the majority of the benchmarks. I'm unsure of what you're suggesting by this.

According to Seagate's website specifications, the difference between the ES and the 7200.10 doesn't seem to be, well, anything at all. There isn't any major difference like TLER when comparing the WD5000KS to the WD5000YS.

If you knew about this, then why are you comparing two websites that are using two different drives (NL35 versus 7200.10)? That is not a proper comparison.

Use two sites that are doing reviews using the same two drives in a test and compare it that way.

Those are just bench marks and while they can give you idea of how a drive will perform they can never test real-word performance so the 7200.10 may perform better in real-world applications than in benchmarks.

That being said the raptors are still better.

The only reason the 7200.10's would be reccomeneded over the raptors is if you only have 1 HD and need the storage while maintaining good storage.

Originally Posted by fireluxx

If you knew about this, then why are you comparing two websites that are using two different drives (NL35 versus 7200.10)? That is not a proper comparison.

Use two sites that are doing reviews using the same two drives in a test and compare it that way.

Storagereview is using both 7200.10 ES and NL35....
They're comparing the 7200.10 ES to the NL35 in the review, that's one of the primary purposes of the review.

You can see the ES 750 and NL35 labeled as separate drives here, and on other pages of the review.

Edit: Edited main post to include a review from techreport, which is more of a roundup style.

Originally Posted by MrMike

In the Anandtech review they even note that the 7200.10 almost gets as noisy as the raptor. That completely pushes this drive out of it's segment in my opinion. I wouldn't use a storage drive in a desktop that's as loud as a raptor.

I have 2 320GB 7200.10 Barracudas, and they are nowhere near Raptor in terms of noise. There was talk that some Barracudas are louder than others, depending on the factory they were produced in, but from my experience they are pretty quiet disks.

32GB and 74GB Raptors are not much better benchmark wise from 7200.10 Barracudas, and in my country one 74GB Raptor cost almost as 3x250GB Barracudas, and I think it's too expensive for such minor performance gain. They are faster, but marginally, while they are really loud.

Sure, 150GB Raptors are great, throw 2 of these in RAID0 and you have really fast disk, but they're quite expensive and can't fit everyone's budget.

Originally Posted by umbolo

I have 2 320GB 7200.10 Barracudas, and they are nowhere near Raptor in terms of noise. There was talk that some Barracudas are louder than others, depending on the factory they were produced in, but from my experience they are pretty quiet disks.

Ok, so this really is just a myth, or the drives they were receiving were early samples. That's good. Thanks.

Originally Posted by umbolo

32GB and 74GB Raptors are not much better benchmark wise from 7200.10 Barracudas, and in my country one 74GB Raptor cost almost as 3x250GB Barracudas, and I think it's too expensive for such minor performance gain. They are faster, but marginally, while they are really loud.

Sure, 150GB Raptors are great, throw 2 of these in RAID0 and you have really fast disk, but they're quite expensive and can't fit everyone's budget.

Ouch, sorry to hear that dude, that's some harsh pricing.
Sounds like you definitely made the right choice for your situation.

I was under the impression that the noise level varied depending on the size for the 7200.10 disks. The larger capacity 7200.10 HDDs, and especially the 750gb one, are quite loud from everything I've read, whereas the 320gb and 250gb models are supposed to be whisper quiet.

Benchmarks smenchmarks, my real-world experience has been this, including 7200.10's:

any Raptor > any 7200rpm drive

Originally Posted by [LYL]Homer

Benchmarks smenchmarks, my real-world experience has been this, including 7200.10's:

any Raptor > any 7200rpm drive

So personal experience vs a company that does sound levels to see how noisy a drive is. I guess I'll believe you more

I was referring to speed, not sound.

Originally Posted by [LYL]Homer

I was referring to speed, not sound.

Ok, I guess your personal experience vs real world tests and benchmarks means the world doesn't know what it's talking about

AFAIK, the raptor's speed only helps in about 11% of data transfers, where the data is non-sequential and too far apart to buffer. Take a look at how an HDD works during gaming. The raptors just improve initial load times by a small margin. That's about the most one can gain from a raptor in gaming.

I'd rather have the storage space. Considering how one can purchase 500+ GB for less than 150GB of raptor...imo, the raptor's price premium doesn't justify the almost inconsequential performance gain.

Hi,

The problem is that you might be comparing a 150GB Raptor with a 500GB 7200RPM drive.

The Raptor is a 3.5" harddisk with 10,000 RPM 2.5" platters. Due to the higher RPM, the disk has less latency and due to the smaller platters and stronger actuator, it has a faster full stroke.

BUT: If you partition a 500GB disk down to 150GB, then the disk will most likely have less access time within these 150GB than the Raptor across the whole platter.

Most performance problems with harddisks are caused by improper partitioning and bad distribution of the data across disks/partitions. Basic rules: OS sits on the primary disk on a partition as small as possible, but large enough for proper operation. The temp directory is located on the first partition of your secondary disk. Your "daily" data is on a third harddisk, the rest of the primary and secondary harddisk can be used as "archive".

Example: DVD production, source on "data", temp on "temp disk", destination on primary. Smart distribution is IMHO better than RAID.

Hans-Jürgen

Originally Posted by MrMike

I have read a few threads now where people have advised to purchase a Seagate 7200.10 series drive instead of an ADFD 74GB or 150GB Raptor. After looking up numerous reviews, I am very confused by these statements.

Marketing is a very powerful tool at changing people's perception. I recommend that you search "perpendicular" (or perpindiculiar or some other perverse misspelled form) in this subforum and note that most people that post about these drives are convinced that recording data perpendicularly is some form of supreme improvement over traditional recording strategies.

Many people fail to notice that the advantage of recording data perpendicularly is a higher data density. Just like all data density jumps in the past, there are some advantages associated with this, such as higher capacities per platter, higher STR and a shorter seek distance over an equally sized data set.

While the perpendicular recording method is certainly superior to the previous option, by enabling a higher data density, Seagate's excellent marketing has people believe that there is more to it than this.

I recall a post made in "General Mayhem" recently about fan-bois and their ridiculous loyalty to a specific company in light of a superior product by a competitor. I think that the f-boy behavior and the problem that you have discovered is a clear sign of the "computer industry" becoming mature: Marketing now dominates the purchasing behavior, whereas previously choices were made rationally.

Aside from all of this, let's not forget an underlying problem about harddrives: there is no "real-world" benchmark. Without such a comparison tool, it is rather difficult for customers to make rational purchasing decisions.

Hi,

Originally Posted by drizzt81

Marketing is a very powerful tool at changing people's perception. I recommend that you search "perpendicular" (or perpindiculiar or some other perverse misspelled form) in this subforum and note that most people that post about these drives are convinced that recording data perpendicularly is some form of supreme improvement over traditional recording strategies.

Perpendicular recording -> higher density -> more bits per revolution -> higher data rate.

Hans-Jürgen

Originally Posted by hjreggel

Hi,
Perpendicular recording -> higher density -> more bits per revolution -> higher data rate.

Yes, if you had read the rest of my post, I do mention that. However, this is in no way, shape or form different from IBM "pixie dust" or any other hardware means that were utilized in the past to increase the data density.

It may be a revolutionary step from a "how we get data on the platter" perspective, but an evolutionary HDD development step. It is a good direction to be moving in, but I do not see it as the "omfg, I cannot believe how f'n awesome this is, d00d3!!ioen1!". And yes, I do own three of Seagate's latest offering.

Agreed. I own several 320GB Seagate disks and several 300GB Maxtor disks, and there's no huge difference in performance.

Hi,

Originally Posted by drizzt81

Yes, if you had read the rest of my post, I do mention that. (...)

You mentioned the higher density, but forgot to mention that LMR was at the limit. So the increased density was *only* possible using PMR. Right now, PMR is in some kind of experimental stage, so manufacturers take it slow and try to get some experience first. We'll see harddisks with higher density and increased sustained data rates in the near future...

BTW: The new 500GB Samsung drives are *really* fast regarding the sustained data rate, and should be similar to the Hitachi T-Series (three-disk) 500GB. Hitachi formerly used 5x 100GB platters in their 500GB LMR disks, and Seagate used 3x 133GB platters in their 400GB LMR disks, 133GB was said to be the limit for 3.5" LMR platters. The 500GB PMR models use 3x 166GB platters.

Hans-Jürgen