Seagate Barracuda 7200.8: 400GBs with NCQ
by Purav Sanghani on April 20, 2005 4:30 PM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Final Words
So, is Seagate's new NCQ enabled 400GB monster worth the dollars that consumers will be asked to put up for it? The answer is not as cut and dry as we would want. Many factors come into play when choosing a hard disk drive, such as overall performance and reliability. To have a 400GB drive and have it fail when we need it the most is grounds to pay a little extra for that more reliable unit, especially when working with sensitive data.Performance can vary greatly among hard drives and, as we have learned over the last few years benchmarking hard disk drives, results are never set in stone. A hard drive can perform extremely well during the first run, but may come close to last in the third or fourth run of a benchmark. There is no single test that can measure the performance of a drive by itself and be accurate enough to use the results thereafter. This is why we have chosen a long list of benchmarks to test each drive - synthetic as well as real world.
As we ran our first benchmark, the synthetic IPEAK pure hard disk performance test, we knew that the 7200.8 would not be the best drive on our list. It did extremely well in Content Creation tests performed with the SYSMark 2004 and WinStone 2004 suites, but could not keep up with the Raptor in Business and Office Productivity tests.
The 7200.8 as well as the 7200.7 did do well in our Real World Game Level Load Time tests with Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, loading Doom 3's caverns1 map in 32.394 seconds with the 7200.7 following closely, and loading Half-Life 2's d1_canals_01 map just inside the 16-second mark, much better than the DiamondMax and SpinPoint drives.
Native Command Queuing was the focus with Seagate's 7200.8 and we ran a few multitasking benchmarks to see how it performs against the others. We first ran the Multitasking Performance test in the Business Winstone 2004 suite and found that Maxtor's DiamondMax 10 NCQ drive came in at first place with an overall multitasking performance rating of 2.95. The Raptor followed, of course, most likely due to its Tagged Command Queuing feature. The Seagate came in at third in multitasking, which doesn't knock it out of the competition, but rather makes it a worthy competitor.
Disk capacity is the biggest attraction to the 7200.8 Barracuda. With only two manufacturers designing drives with capacities of 400GB+ (500GB - Hitachi's 7K500), the questions that should be asked are "How much space do I need and how much am I willing to pay for it?"
Seagate has designed a great drive that has been proven to compete with the 10,000RPM Raptor and Maxtor's newest NCQ enabled drive with a 16MB buffer. Though it doesn't win all of the tests, it does give the other units a run for their money. Seagate also backs their drives with a 5-year warranty, which is the lengthiest in the hard drive industry.
At the time of publication, the Seagate 7200.8 400GB Barracuda retails for around $330. But if you don't mind 100GB less disk space and want a 16MB buffer for that extra punch, the OEM version of Maxtor's DiamondMax 10 or MaXLine III retails for just under $200.
Special thanks to NewEgg.com for providing us with the products for this review.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
AtaStrumf - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
#29 - I found a similar test that includes a WD Caviar drive and from what I can tell it is not exactly lagging.http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200504/20050...
Calin - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
In "WinBench99" page, you said "The Disk Transfer Rate test reads from the media in a linear fashion from the beginning (inner tracks) to the end (outer tracks)". It's false, the hard drives have the beginning tracks on the outside (well, exterior) of the platters, and the inner drives in the interior part. The reason is that while stationary, the read heads stay outside of the media, and they will reach the outer tracks sooner. Also, on the outer tracks the data density is increased, so the data read and write speed is increased also.emboss - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
I'd say you need to ditch Winbench 99 for transfer tests. It's physically impossible for drives to have the same transfer rate on the inside and outside of the platters. Not to mention that the ONLY drives that showed this behaviour were NCQ drives. I suspect what is happening is that the NCQ reordering is stuffing things up by reading the data out-of-order, and that the reordering process delivers the data in one (or several) burst blocks that do not correspond to the real transfer rate off the platters. Maybe HDTach might return more sensible numbers.Lonyo - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
Are you going to do some more HDD/NCQ testing when we get more dual core CPU's to test in multi-taking situations?The recent article on the Pentium D shows the benefits of NCQ combined with a dual core CPU (the single core CPU's didn't really show any improvement), so are you going to go more in depth hopefully soon (after you can publish results of AMD X2 CPU's)?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
jm20 - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
How is the 7200.7 120Gb drive louder then a Raptor? My 7200.7 120Gb drive is near SILENT, no where loud as a Raptor. I think your measuring device is off forthe Acoustics test.segagenesis - Thursday, April 21, 2005 - link
#20 - Thats easy. Ignoring the Raptor they are lagging behind on the consumer front compared to others. Last I checked they still charge a fair amount extra for a drive with a FDB motor. The performance just hasnt been up to par either. The days when the "Special Edition" drives were great are gone.Palek - Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - link
Purav, you did not explain why you chose to test with an nForce chipset over a chipset from intel.For one thing, nVidia's ATA controllers/drivers have a fairly poor track record. I still remember the multitude of problems that cropped up when people installed nVidia ATA drivers on their nForce2 motherboards. I run my nForce2-based computer with MS ATA drivers because I am too afraid that the nVidia drivers will wreck my system (that, and ExactAudioCopy does not recognize any optical drives with the nVidia drivers installed). Admittedly, these issues were driver-related, but then nVidia's checkered past does not boost my confidence in their ability to provide an nForce4 driver that actually works according to spec. Maybe we're seeing no boost with NCQ because of poor implementation, who knows. Testing with just one platform will not reveal such issues.
Also, among other things intel is known for their rock-solid and impressively fast ATA controllers, so an intel chipset would be the obvious platform of choice for testing such new technologies as NCQ.
erwos - Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - link
"It's mentioned in the article that all of the 7200.8 drives use a 3x133gb platter configuration."This actually isn't true, from what I've read elsewhere. Read the following at StorageReview:
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200504/20050...
It makes a lot more sense than the "leftover space" theorem.
-Erwos
quorm - Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - link
xsilver, the drive is not "guaranteed reliable." The only warranty is that if it breaks within five years, they will repair/replace it. There is a possibility that data can be lost from any portion of the drive. You have no way of knowing whether this additional space, if accessible, would be any less reliable than the rest of the drive. Yes, modifying the drive would probably void the warranty, but I'm wondering if Seagate is selling software-limited, yet physically identical drives at different prices, much like with ATI's 9500/9700.Zar0n - Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - link
With NCQ on u get worst results than with it off.This may be good at servers, but no good at desktop.
I’ll say its bad implemented but, all drivers seem to suffer.
So no NCQ for me...