Urgent Help ! Bought Online Seagate ST4000DM005 instead got ST4000DM004....Is this Bad ???

Plainman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
134
Hello Guys,

I just ordered a 4TB SEAGATE ST4000DM005 hard disk drive and instead got a ST4000DM004 !

Is this bad ? I tried googling it and doing some research before asking here, But i couldnt find a clearcut spec sheet for DM004 some sites say its 7200rpm, some say its 5400rpm and some say its got 256mb cache instead of 64mb.

So im looking for some feedback on the real specs of this HDD if anybody here can help me. My amazon return window closes in a few days.

Thanks in advance.
 
I already downloaded that document and till now read it 4 times and found no mention of the rpm speed within its pages. I wasnt kidding when i said ive really sifted left right and center thru google and the manuals before posting here. Googling up this DM004 drive results in some pages saying its a 7200 rpm drive and some say its 5400 rpm and everything inbetween.

Thats why im asking here.
 
if you have the drive you and the RPM is not printed on the label you can use CrystalDiskInfo to tell you the RPM.


Also if you do a sequential benchmark of the outer track and get over 200 MB/s then it is likely a 7200 rpm drive.
 
Thanks for your inputs.

Yes i have the disk and the rpm isnt printed on the label. Seagate nowadays rarely wants to reveal what the disks rpm is. Its not mentioned on their site and even in the manual.
 
Can i connect it to my win7 64 bit os system thru the usb 3.0 port and run crystaldisk or should that be done only thru the internal sata headers please ?
 
I have a USB 3.0 based docking station that takes 3.5" internal HDDs in its bay.
 
I connected the said disk as mentioned above using USB 3.0 to a USB 3.0 Docking Station. Ran Crystal Disk Info and it says RPM is 5425 rpm.

I did a Crsytal Disk Mark Test and it gave only 40mbps READ and 38mbps WRITE in the sequential read test. Gave almost the same values for the random read and write test.

When i copied files onto the drive thru the same USB setup as mentioned above i got 35 Mbps when copying a folder with larger video files and 15 Mbps when copying a folder having several small files (DSLR pics).

Now the matter at hand is that i got this instead of the DM005 model which i ordered from amazon. That drive is rated to be 4900rpm. Will i get much difference in performance if i file a return and ask for the DM005,,, Or is the difference too negligible that i can just let this go ?
 
In the PDF document that drescherjm linked to, the Rotational Speed of the ST4000DM004 is "stated" (albeit, indirectly) to be 5000 rpm. (In a similar doc, the ST4000DM005 [ http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/barracuda-fam/barracuda-new/en-us/docs/100804656a.pdf ] is "stated" to be 5900 rpm.) Yet, both drives have the same Max Data Transfer Rate of 190 MB/s. This "apparent" anomaly is explained by the drives having different recording densities (which Seagate obfuscates by using different units [BPI vs FCI]).

Other differences are Cache Buffer size (256MB for 004; 64MB for 005) and number of platters (2 for 004; 3 for 005).

Unless you have some specific requirements, the two drives should perform (roughly) similar.

-- uhclem
 
UhClem is pretty on the money here. This is a 5400 RPM drive. The confusion may come from that smaller capacity drives from this same model lineup, such as the 3TB and 2TB versions, are 7200 RPM. Same goes for the cache differences, the 4TB ST4000DM004 is a 256 cache, but there's a cache drop-off on smaller capacities to 64MB and then to 32MB for the 500GB model. Things like this can sometimes lead to sites listing conflicting specs. The spec sheets for both drives have already been shared by other users here, so no need to bother fetching those. The ST4000DM004 is from our current lineup, so it's a newer drive with newer firmware. You also have better chances of warranty coverage with the newer drive, depending on the situation. However, if you feel the seller sent you something that is different than what you ordered, you could always get in touch with the seller to discuss further. In this particular case, though, it seems you may have ended up with the better drive.
 
In the PDF document that drescherjm linked to, the Rotational Speed of the ST4000DM004 is "stated" (albeit, indirectly) to be 5000 rpm. (In a similar doc, the ST4000DM005 [ http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/barracuda-fam/barracuda-new/en-us/docs/100804656a.pdf ] is "stated" to be 5900 rpm.) Yet, both drives have the same Max Data Transfer Rate of 190 MB/s. This "apparent" anomaly is explained by the drives having different recording densities (which Seagate obfuscates by using different units [BPI vs FCI]).

Other differences are Cache Buffer size (256MB for 004; 64MB for 005) and number of platters (2 for 004; 3 for 005).

Unless you have some specific requirements, the two drives should perform (roughly) similar.

-- uhclem

My main purpose is to use this as an internal mounted BACKUP drive. My PC's total capacity including the OS drive and 2 data drives totals about 4tb. So the entire system and data gets backed up to this regularly for system redundancy. I will be using macrium reflect to regularly back up the whole system onto this drive.

I dont know if this is a specific requirement but will there be a difference using the DM005 which is 5900 rpm ?

Thanks
 
On a side note i just wanted to ask. When i connected this disk thru USB 3.0 using a USB 3.0 rated dock i got a transfer speed of 35mbps. Is that normal for USB 3.0. Secondly, when this disk is connected internally thru the SATA2 port will the transfer rate be better than this. If yes, then will it further improve more than this when hooked to a SATA3 port ?

Regards
 
UhClem is pretty on the money here. This is a 5400 RPM drive. The confusion may come from that smaller capacity drives from this same model lineup, such as the 3TB and 2TB versions, are 7200 RPM. Same goes for the cache differences, the 4TB ST4000DM004 is a 256 cache, but there's a cache drop-off on smaller capacities to 64MB and then to 32MB for the 500GB model. Things like this can sometimes lead to sites listing conflicting specs. The spec sheets for both drives have already been shared by other users here, so no need to bother fetching those. The ST4000DM004 is from our current lineup, so it's a newer drive with newer firmware. You also have better chances of warranty coverage with the newer drive, depending on the situation. However, if you feel the seller sent you something that is different than what you ordered, you could always get in touch with the seller to discuss further. In this particular case, though, it seems you may have ended up with the better drive.

Hi,

Could you explain a little as to how this may be slightly better. Because of the 256mb cache, which im not sure it has because CRYSTAL INFO showed its cache size as blank. Even if its not a better drive i just want to be sure its not going to perform worse. Even equal performance would be digestible for me.

Thanks for your time in advance.
 
The warranty is the same for both. A measly 2 years. So that is ruled out as a benefit. However Seagate gives really bad refurbished/repaired drives as replacements so their return policy is anyway not something to write home about either. So based on rpm to rpm head on, would i see a difference in performance ?

Im nowadays losing confidence with Seagate. Hiding rpm values. Making verifying warranty so round about. And giving only half the warranty time on the already measly 2 years or in some cases just 1 year warranty (depending on when the seller got it on his shelves etc).
 
... This is a 5400 RPM drive. ...
Why do you say 5400, when Seagate's own Drive Specifications for this drive (ST4000DM004) state that it is 5000 rpm?
(I assume you're in Support ... but) If you have access to Engineering people, please ask them why the Drive Identify command reports 5425rpm, when the spec states 5000rpm (or maybe you should run that one past the Legal Department (only half-):)).

... The confusion may come from that smaller capacity drives from this same model lineup, such as the 3TB and 2TB versions, are 7200 RPM. ...

(Unless you have some bizarre definition of >>this same model lineup<<,) all the drives covered by the document (linked by drescherjm above) are stated to be 5000rpm [including the ST3000DM007 (3TB) and ST2000DM005 (2TB)].

-- uhclem
 
My main purpose is to use this as an internal mounted BACKUP drive. My PC's total capacity including the OS drive and 2 data drives totals about 4tb. So the entire system and data gets backed up to this regularly for system redundancy. I will be using macrium reflect to regularly back up the whole system onto this drive.

I dont know if this is a specific requirement but will there be a difference using the DM005 which is 5900 rpm ?

Thanks
No difference. (Maybe I should have written "very very specific requirement" :).)

Regarding your followup questions:
1. Your 35MBps speed suggests that you were only getting USB 2.0 performance.
2. When connected internally (SATA2 or SATA3 [no difference (measurable by you)]), you should see no performance degradation (Crystal should measure 180+ MB/s seq read xfer.)
3. The 256MB Cache Buffer size spec is correct. (Cache sizes > 32MB can't be programmatically detected/reported due to a lack of foresight when the ATA specs were written 20+ years ago). (But there is no difference between 64MB and 256MB cache buffer for you.)
4. Unless things have changed in the last few years, your warranty coverage should start upon documented purchase/delivery date. If/when you call the manufacturer, regarding warranty, escalate your call beyond the front-line flunky to verify this state of affairs.

-- uhclem
 
Last edited:
Why do you say 5400, when Seagate's own Drive Specifications for this drive (ST4000DM004) state that it is 5000 rpm?
(I assume you're in Support ... but) If you have access to Engineering people, please ask them why the Drive Identify command reports 5425rpm, when the spec states 5000rpm (or maybe you should run that one past the Legal Department (only half-):)).



(Unless you have some bizarre definition of >>this same model lineup<<,) all the drives covered by the document (linked by drescherjm above) are stated to be 5000rpm [including the ST3000DM007 (3TB) and ST2000DM005 (2TB)].

-- uhclem

I don't understand what you mean if im in support. I don't work for anyone. Im an independent business person and this is just for my home based system that im asking this question. Ofcourse i dabble with computers and do a lot of video editing, on my other system at home. Today who doesn't dabble in computers ? LOL. But i don't know what led you to think i was in support !

Anyway i tested the DM004 in Crystal Disk Info and it showed 5425rpm. I dont know what you mean the specs say 5000rpm, the documentation for the DM004 doesnt mention rpm speed anywhere.

We are talking about the 4TB versions and i dont know why youve mentioned the 2TB/3TB versions as per your last line in the quote above. AFAIK we all went thru the manuals and docs and couldnt find a given RPM for the ST4000DM004.
 
Last edited:
In (my) post #19 (above), I was replying to (a different member's) post #14. (That member self-identifies as a Seagate employee.)

Clear now, I hope ...

-- uhclem

Hi, Yes, Im sorry for the confusion/mixup.:confused:
 
Reg the warranty i think country to country the regulations vary.
Yes, that is true. But the (legal) regulations are what the company MUST comply with. Company policies, both written and unwritten, are often more permissive, especially if you make your case directly to a more senior person.

-- uhclem "Remember, the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away."
 
Yes. But right now before warranty. I need to quickly decide whether to have this disk or return it. If there will hadly be any performance difference between 5425rpm and 5900rpm then ill just keep this disk. What is your opinion. Im mainly going to use this for backups. So there will be long 3-4 hr writes but thats it, the disk doesnt get used for anything else.
 
[ Nothing has changed since post #20, where I said: ] "No difference." (based on your projected usage description.)

-- uhclem
 
If it is to be used as an internal backup drive, I think your drive is too be preferred. You are requesting it perform a task that isn't drive speed intensive. Unless every time you back-up, you cant spare a second of machine time until you can game again (in which case plan for off hours), I can't see how or why it will make a difference.
Yes no one wants to get burned on a tech purchase because of bullshit, but in this case I think you are fine. Unless you paid a premium for the drive, let it go.
 
Thanks for all your inputs.

At the risk of being slightly off topic can i ask if a 64gb SSD for my OS alone will suffice. Because my current OS HDD has never seen more than 20gb on it with the OS included. Because i have all my data on separate drives. So can i just go with a LITEON 64GB SSD for purely the OS alone. Because the general consensus is not to fill a SSD more than 75% because after that performance suffers.

Thanks
 
Decent SSD makers do not make 64GB these days. And the cost for a 120/128 GB is so low. Are you really saving much? I don't think so.
 
OK ill take your word for it and buy a Kingston UV400 120gb SSD. But its a TLC chip. I hope thats not too bad :)
 
Last edited:
Why do you say 5400, when Seagate's own Drive Specifications for this drive (ST4000DM004) state that it is 5000 rpm?
(I assume you're in Support ... but) If you have access to Engineering people, please ask them why the Drive Identify command reports 5425rpm, when the spec states 5000rpm (or maybe you should run that one past the Legal Department (only half-):)).

Not sure where you're seeing 5000 rpm, but as your drive identify reports, it is a 5400 RPM drive. Current model Seagate consumer drives come in either 5400 RPM or 7200 RPM class speeds. These are the common speeds used to identify hard drives.


(Unless you have some bizarre definition of >>this same model lineup<<,) all the drives covered by the document (linked by drescherjm above) are stated to be 5000rpm [including the ST3000DM007 (3TB) and ST2000DM005 (2TB)].

-- uhclem

When we say current model lineup, we don't mean drives in the same document, those documents are grouped by drives with the same overall specs. The current model lineup for BarraCuda 3.5" drives consists of models which have not been EOL (End-of-Life)'ed by another, more updated model yet:

4TB: ST4000DM004
3TB: ST3000DM008
2TB: ST2000DM006
1TB: ST1000DM010
500GB: ST500DM009

The 3TB and 2TB versions you mentioned are from older lineups.

The 3TB and 2TB versions we were referring to are from the ones we've listed above.
 
Hi,

Could you explain a little as to how this may be slightly better. Because of the 256mb cache, which im not sure it has because CRYSTAL INFO showed its cache size as blank. Even if its not a better drive i just want to be sure its not going to perform worse. Even equal performance would be digestible for me.

Thanks for your time in advance.

The cache is correct for the reasons another user already replied with, this is one reason it's likely to be just a little faster. Another is just that a newer version of the drive equals newer, updated firmware/technology that helps optimize the drive a bit. The tech world is like living in a vacuum, new developments and optimization lead to what is the best at one moment to somehow feel outdated in a very short amount of time.
 
Read some reviews. No need to take my word. A little research and this thread could be considered useless ;)

Thanks for your help and all but deeming the thread useless is being assumptive. It helped me understand about the wrong HDD that i received and take a decision. Maybe your an expert but to each his own. And i never trust reviews more that actual user opinions. Reviews can be paid and sponsored etc, the manufacturer knows that the dumb idea of 'read some reviews and just buy' is doing the rounds, hence the reviews. If we could read everything from reviews and google it up why have a forum.
 
Hello!



I've bought a new Seagate Barrracuda (3 days ago) ST4000dm005 (4GB model) instead of ST4000DM004 because the 005 is newer and i think it's a bit faster:
005 vs 004
6 heads 4 heads
3 disks 2 disks
5.1ms latency 6.0ms
5900RPM 5400RPM
64MB cache 256MB
Areal density (Gb/in2) 811 1203


THE PROBLEM IS that i've found these SMART values (Cristaldisk info):

01 Read error rate: 82/65/6/a lot (current/worst/threshold/data)
07 seek error rate: 61/60/45/a lot

I'm worried about it because i've seen other users' screenshots with values of read error rate of:
Read error rate: 116/100/6 (current/worst/threshold)
seek error rate: 100/253/45

In addition, I've found this link where Segate says that does not publish attributes and thresholds and that values that might be read out by third-party SMART software are not based on how the values may be used within the Seagate hard drives.
http://knowledge.seagate.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/203971en


So,
Can my unit be faulty?
How do you interpret the data to get the ok status of the disk?
Can i trust this smart data and result from CristalDisk Info?


View attachment 40782
image2.png



Thanks in advance.
 
Hello!



I've bought a new Seagate Barrracuda (3 days ago) ST4000dm005 (4GB model) instead of ST4000DM004 because the 005 is newer and i think it's a bit faster:
005 vs 004
6 heads 4 heads
3 disks 2 disks
5.1ms latency 6.0ms
5900RPM 5400RPM
64MB cache 256MB
Areal density (Gb/in2) 811 1203


THE PROBLEM IS that i've found these SMART values (Cristaldisk info):

01 Read error rate: 82/65/6/a lot (current/worst/threshold/data)
07 seek error rate: 61/60/45/a lot

I'm worried about it because i've seen other users' screenshots with values of read error rate of:
Read error rate: 116/100/6 (current/worst/threshold)
seek error rate: 100/253/45

In addition, I've found this link where Segate says that does not publish attributes and thresholds and that values that might be read out by third-party SMART software are not based on how the values may be used within the Seagate hard drives.
http://knowledge.seagate.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/203971en


So,
Can my unit be faulty?
How do you interpret the data to get the ok status of the disk?
Can i trust this smart data and result from CristalDisk Info?


View attachment 40782 View attachment 40783


Thanks in advance.

Seagate has a free diagnostic utility called SeaTools. What you will want to do is download that and run the Long Generic test, it takes awhile to run as the name suggests, but this is the test that will test ALL sectors of the drive, other tests will choose sectors to test at random, which lets the test run faster but isn't as thorough. Here is an article from our Knowledge Base on how to use SeaTools.

If it turns out that the drive is not healthy, you can look into any potential warranty information by using our Warranty Validation Tool.

Should you need to get in touch directly with Seagate for any reason, here is a link for Seagate Support.
 
Seagate has a free diagnostic utility called SeaTools. What you will want to do is download that and run the Long Generic test, it takes awhile to run as the name suggests, but this is the test that will test ALL sectors of the drive, other tests will choose sectors to test at random, which lets the test run faster but isn't as thorough. Here is an article from our Knowledge Base on how to use SeaTools.

If it turns out that the drive is not healthy, you can look into any potential warranty information by using our Warranty Validation Tool.

Should you need to get in touch directly with Seagate for any reason, here is a link for Seagate Support.

Hi,
I know about SeaTools, and my HDD pass it. But SeaTools gives no info about the healthy of the unit, only PASSED/NOT PASSED, nothing about SMART values.

With the SMART values you can view and analyse more details. Maybe a HDD can pass the SeaTools, but doesn't say if the HDD is 100% healthy or 25%, that's the question.

I don't know if the values on the screenshot are good for a healthy new unit or not, and Seagate does not know either know (they told me to buy another HDD to compare with mine, ufff).


Please, help.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
We always advocate with ANY storage, especially if you're nervous about the health of the drive (really it should always be done regardless) just make sure and back up any important data in order to protect yourself. The go-to strategy is the 3-2-1 method:

Have 3 copies of your data, stored on 2 different mediums, and 1 somewhere off site to protect against disaster.
 
Back
Top