7K500 entered into SR's database, the MAU has been dethroned...

DougLite

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,764
... in SR's Office DriveMark 2006 :eek: It also soundly defeats the WD4000KD in all tests :eek: The MAU still holds the lead in the High-End and Gaming DriveMarks, and WD740GD has a slight edge in Gaming performance over the 7K500, but make no mistake about it - the 7K500 SATA is the biggest and baddest ATA drive money can buy. Period. It is also the fastest 7200RPM drive ever. The bad news is that ZZF wants $383.25 for it, its a five platter monster, and transfer performance isn't fabulous - but who cares? :p

7K500 leads all comers, regardless of spindle speed, interface, or price, in the Office DriveMark.
7K500 leads all ATA drives in High-End, as well as the Sims2 Gaming Test.
WD740GD holds a pretty slim edge over the 7K500 in FarCry and WoW.

Clicky
 
DAMN YOU.......( looks over at Raptors) ........Now I need to upgrade :)
 
*wonders where my MAS3735NP would be on that list?????* :confused:

PS, y do you say the MAU has been dethroned?????????
 
I have the 7K500 if anyone wants me to try any benchmarks on it.. I can test it on sata or sata-II ports. I just use it for storage now since I just bought a 74gb raptor from Frys yesterday. I also read that the "new" WD 400GB beats the 7K500 in most benchmarks.. according to the last issue of mpc. Don't know about their testing mechanisms tho.
 
cooter said:
PS, y do you say the MAU has been dethroned?????????
That's simple - the 7K500 delivers better performance in the Office DriveMark. Hitachi's buffer team obviously has their act together. If this drive was using the 125GB platters of the T7K250, it would most likely take the High-End DriveMark (and possibly WoW) as well with the subsequent boost in transfer performance. FarCry would probably still be out of reach, as it's a massive seek performance test with over 1000 files of less than 128kb in a FarCry installation.
 
Anybody else notice that they screwed up on their power evals.....?

How can you have 0.0watts MAX power and 8.5watts at idle? :confused:

But it shows that drives are getting better - at last!

 
^ I'm sure we will see complete data on the 7K500 when SR publishes their review.
 
^ As much as I hate to admit it, that's exactly what I said out loud in the War Room when I checked the SR Office DriveMark 2006 results and saw the 7K500 atop everything. I had seen some data that pointed to this drive being a monster, but nothing on this scale. If Hitachi brings a 16MB buffer to the T7K250, nobody else would come close. Hitachi has the best firmware team in the business.
 
Yeah...I mean...God damn...I'm still in shock-and-awe over here... :eek: do you think that other 500GB drives (and those that are coming) will perform in the same range?
 
Okay, so it beat it in one test. I'll admit, I'm quite impressed. Still doesn't hold a pickle to the MAU in other aspects, though. Any clue what happened? What exactly does this particular test focus on? A flaw in the test? Or is the drive just that good?
 
TeeJayHoward said:
Okay, so it beat it in one test. I'll admit, I'm quite impressed. Still doesn't hold a pickle to the MAU in other aspects, though. Any clue what happened? What exactly does this particular test focus on? A flaw in the test? Or is the drive just that good?
Don't forget that your MAU can compete on price :p

The SR DriveMark 2006 is a capture of the Business Winstone 2004 test, and I guess that Hitachi could have tweaked the firmware specifically for benching, much like the 3DMark cheating scandal where the driver would compromise on IQ when it detected the launch of the 3DMark executable. I doubt this, but it is a possibility.

I am inclined to believe that the drive is that good. Hitachi has always had ace seek performance and solid buffer strategy, but all of their other units have been satisfactory in their eyes with an 8MB buffer. The 7K400 is at or near the top among 7200RPM drives that have twice the buffer, and the 7K500 squares everything away and allows Hitachi to pull away again.
 
So how do I get that kind of performance w/o shelling out $400? I look at the WD4000KD and its $212 at ZZF for 400GB, and this is almost $400 for 500GB. Price performance gives it to WD.
 
doormat said:
So how do I get that kind of performance w/o shelling out $400? I look at the WD4000KD and its $212 at ZZF for 400GB, and this is almost $400 for 500GB. Price performance gives it to WD.
You don't :p Hitachi could bring this 16MB buffer and firmware to the T7K250, and have an absolute monster (maybe even faster than 7K500 thanks to higher areal density) for ~$120 - but they won't. Selling a single 7K500 for $380 makes quite a bit more money than two T7K250s for $240.
 
damn.. I just bought a Raptor (fry's deal) this weekend.. I might have to make my 7K500 my boot drive! :eek: :eek:

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200511/HDS725050KLA360_3.html

deskstarvsraptor.png
 
Oh...man...does anybody know if this drive comes in a notebook version? :p
 
Well then...when I get my notebook late next year, I'll make sure that it has that Hitachi drive in it. ;) Though, I have to say, I'm still a bit "itchy" about Hitachi, after seeing the deathstar disaster with IBM, and them taking over that mess. But it seems they've recovered quite well from that episode, and this newest drive restores my confidence in them. :)
 
Hmm...interesting comparison between a Seagate 500GB and the Hitachi 500GB over @ GamePC. They say that Hitachi's design is less efficient (5 x 100GB platters and "only" 8 MB of cache), yet at the same time it's pretty competitive with the Seagate (4x 125GB platters and 16 MB of cache). I'm eager to see Western Digital's and Maxtor's offerings in this size...it should prove to be a very, very interesting comparison... :)
 
Not even close. The Barracuda 7200.9 doesn't get it done, although it is a better server drive. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 7K500 is the biggest and baddest ATA drive money can buy (for power desktop users)
 
Back
Top