Seagate 7200.9 500GB: Mouthwatering Benchmarks
by Purav Sanghani on October 24, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
The Test
Our test bed specs have been laid out below. Since our test bed has remained untouched from our look at Seagate's 400GB Barracuda article, we will include our results of the drives that we looked at then.
Our test bed:
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2Ghz)
Giga-byte GA-K8NXP-SLI
Western Digital WD1600JS
NVIDIA 6600GT SLI Edition (single 128MB card)
1GB (512MBx2) Corsair XMS4400
Our motherboard is an nForce4 based board that features support for the SATA II standard, up to 3Gbps/sec SATA transfer rates, and NCQ and TCQ.
We used the following nForce platform drivers in conjunction with our testbed:
nForce4 Chipset Driver 6.66
Nvidia graphics driver 71.89
Windows XP SP2 w/out further updates
More details about each individual test will appear in the section of the review dedicated to that particular test.
The 7200.9 Series
Our test bed specs have been laid out below. Since our test bed has remained untouched from our look at Seagate's 400GB Barracuda article, we will include our results of the drives that we looked at then.
Our test bed:
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2Ghz)
Giga-byte GA-K8NXP-SLI
Western Digital WD1600JS
NVIDIA 6600GT SLI Edition (single 128MB card)
1GB (512MBx2) Corsair XMS4400
Our motherboard is an nForce4 based board that features support for the SATA II standard, up to 3Gbps/sec SATA transfer rates, and NCQ and TCQ.
We used the following nForce platform drivers in conjunction with our testbed:
nForce4 Chipset Driver 6.66
Nvidia graphics driver 71.89
Windows XP SP2 w/out further updates
| AnandTech Storage Tests | |
| Business Winstone IPEAK | a playback test of all of the IO operations that occur within Business Winstone 2004 |
| Content Creation IPEAK | a playback test of all of the IO operations that occur within Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 |
| SYSMark 2004 | the official SYSMark 2004 test suite |
| Business Winstone 2004 | the official Business Winstone 2004 test suite |
| Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 | the official Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 test suite |
| Half-Life 2 Level Load Test | Half-Life 2 level load time test |
| Doom 3 Level Load Test | Doom 3 level load time test |
| Command & Conquer: Generals Level Load Test | Command & Conquer: Generals level load time test |
| Real World File System Task Tests | timed tests of basic file system tasks including zipping/unzipping and copying files |
| HDTach | Synthetic test for transfer rate of hard disk during a full disk read |
| Service Time and Transfer Rate Tests | Synthetic tests for average service time and transfer rate of hard disk during a full disk read |
| Business Winstone 2004 Multitasking Test | Synthetic tests for overall system multitasking performance |
| Real World Multitasking Test | timed tests of basic multitasking processes, timing a file zip operation while importing Outlook data |
More details about each individual test will appear in the section of the review dedicated to that particular test.
The 7200.9 Series
| Capacity | Platter Density | # of Platters/ Heads | Spindle speed (RPM) | Average Seek Time | Average Latency | Interface | Buffer Sizes |
| 40GB | 80GB | 1 / 1 | 7200 | 8.9ms | 4.16ms | PATA / SATA | 2MB |
| 80GB | 160 GB | 1 / 1 | 7200 | 8.9 ms | 4.16ms | PATA / SATA | 2, 8MB |
| 120GB | 120GB | 1 / 2 | 7200 | 8.5ms | 4.16ms | PATA / SATA | 2, 8MB |
| 160GB | 160GB | 1 / 2 | 7200 | 8.5ms | 4.16ms | PATA / SATA | 2, 8MB |
| 200GB | 100GB | 2 / 4 | 7200 | 8.5ms | 4.16ms | PATA / SATA | 8MB |
| 250GB | 125GB | 2 / 4 | 7200 | 8.5ms | 4.16ms | PATA / SATA | 8MB |
| 300GB | 100GB | 3 / 6 | 7200 | 8.5ms | 4.16ms | PATA / SATA | 16MB |
| 400GB | 133GB | 3 / 6 | 7200 | 8.5ms | 4.16ms | PATA / SATA | 16MB |
| 500GB | 125GB | 4 / 8 | 7200 | 8.5ms | 4.16ms | PATA / SATA | 16MB |
The 500GB 7200.9
Click for high resolution version.
The Circuitry
Click for high resolution version.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
Googer - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
Once again NCQ did not aide these drives to deliver higher performance. It is my speculation that we will need an Operating System that can take advantage of NCQ before we could see any performance gains from it. Untill then Keep it disabled.KristopherKubicki - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
NCQ is very vendor specific. Some drives benefit more than others from it.Kristopher
PuravSanghani - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
NCQ is actually beneficial in server applications where disk requests are occuring very frequently as opposed to a desktop PC scenario where disk access is not as critical.We are trying to research ways to benchmark this but if any of you have any suggestions, please feel free to send an email with any ideas you have.
Thanks,
Purav
Byte - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
with an icredible 5 year warranty i exclusively use seagate. Suprisingly i've never had a chance to test out Seagates replacement steps. I've returned dozens of WDs, Maxtors, and IBMs. Looks like seagates on a role.Griswold - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
Such is life. I've seen quite a few Seagates die, yet, never had a problem with WD in more than 10 years of using them.One persons experience is hardly statistically correct. :)
DrZoidberg - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
I own a 200gig Seagate 7200.7 SATA, and though the synthetic benchmarks like Winstone, Sysmark, Seagate is like at middle of pack most of the time, when it comes to like Real world tests like loading game levels Seagate is generally faster, sometimes even better than WD Raptor. The File zip times are pretty good as well.I'm always suprised at this, something that is average in synthetic benchmarks to do quite well in real world tests.
imaheadcase - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
I think its time to start shipping hardrive coolers standard with drive purchases like they do CPUs. heheScrogneugneu - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
Well, I still wait the moment I'm supposed to say "Oh dear God this hard disk is fast!"...It qualifies in the middle of the disks, and under some conditions (in fact, only during the DOOM III loading test) stands out... but it falls short (VERY short) of impressing me...
Did you ever noticed that, for example, during the zip test, the vast majority of the disks differ only by 4 or 5 seconds on a minute of encoding? And in the case of unzipping, it's down to 1 or 2 seconds? Where am I supposed to notice the greater speed?
"I got the fastest hard drive in the world, I can zip my 300 MB files 3 seconds faster than you! You're jaleous, aren't you?"
PrinceGaz - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
Yes, after the earlier promotional article about this drive, and now the title "Mouthwatering Benchmarks", I was expecting to be blown away by the blisteringly fast speed of the drive. It seemed pretty average really, nothing special at all apart from a high capacity (matched by a high price).blackbrrd - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
I completely agree, having a title like "Seagate 7200.9 500GB: Mouthwatering Benchmarks" for this review is just wrong. Anandtech might get more hits in the short run, but looses credibility while doing so.I really don't like review sites that have misleading titles.