POST A COMMENT

23 Comments

Back to Article

  • yacoub - Thursday, February 02, 2006 - link

    If you're going to do an acoustics test, you should make a useful graph instead of that tiny one that makes them all look relatively equivalent in noise output. You should also note any particular sound properties the drive emits. Whine, pitch, vibration, etc. It would be subjective but it's also very important.

    If anything, harddrive speed and performance are relatively similar among most drives. The noise output however, is often greatly different, and is especially important if the drive emits noise at a certain frequency that annoys the user. I'd rather wait an extra millisecond for a seek than have to put up with a constant ringing noise or whine from the drive.

    You could also at least include a modern Samsung SpinPoint like the P120 SP2004C 200GB drive in your test list instead of the dated Samsungs you use currently. Aside from it having better performance than most of the older Samsungs you list, it also is one of the quietest 7200rpm 3.5" HDs out there - enough that it would certainly stand out in your acoustics test instead of the current lot you test with that leaves a graph that gives a false impression of "oh, looks like all HDs are about the same in noise so I won't bother using that as a purchase consideration."

    http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200511/SP250...">http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200511/SP250... shows a more useful acoustics test graph and the strongest point of the Samsung SpinPoint SP2004C - its SPL. Anyone building a quiet PC should certainly consider it. I love mine.

    SilentPCReview also has a SpinPoint P120 SP2004C review but their site seems to be down at the moment.
    Reply
  • RallyMaster - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - link

    Is this the ST3160812AS? If so...I have one! Never thought my 95 dollar hard drive was capable of doing so well. Wow. Reply
  • wharris1 - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - link

    yes, this article was initially posted last week. Reply
  • Olaf van der Spek - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - link

    > We also benchmarked a couple of these drives in a RAID-0 array as a brief look at RAID performance with results that were pleasing to our eyes.

    Really?
    No improvements in either application or game level load times.
    Little improvements in the zip/unzip tests.

    What exactly is so pleasing?
    Results in vague iPeak tests?
    Reply
  • JWalk - Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - link

    Ding! We have a winner.

    Nothing appears to have changed when it comes to real-world applications and RAID-0 performance. Anand himself and Eugene at storagereview.com have settled this numerous times.

    If you want to see big synthetic benchmark numbers, run RAID-0. If you want actual real-world results, use a fast single drive. RAID has its place, but not in a RAID-0 array for normal desktop/gaming use.
    Reply
  • Ecmaster76 - Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - link

    Did this one get pulled and put back up or something? Reply
  • neogodless - Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - link

    I think the focus on RAID makes the omission of temperature and noise data a strange thing. How does that second drive affect the temperature inside the case, especially if the drives are side by side? How does it affect noise? Reply
  • patentman - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    "With the announcement and release of Seagate's new 160GB 5400.3 2.5" notebook drive, which utilizes the new perpendicular magnetic recording method"

    I think I've said this before, but perpendicular magnetic recording is not new by any stetch of the imagination. There are patents on this technology that were filed in the late 80's. Mainstream products using this technology might be new, but the actual method of recording is, in the computer world, very very old.
    Reply
  • PuravSanghani - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - link

    Patentman,

    Though the patent may have been around since the late 80's, only recently has a hard drive manufacturer been able to implement the technology in their products.

    Toshiba was the first to do this with their smaller drives and Seagate is the first do implement this technology in notebook drives. The race is on to see who will introduce desktop drives based on this technology!

    Purav
    Reply
  • Mr Perfect - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    The 160GB 7200.9 is not in either of the two temperature charts or the noise chart. The 500GB 7200.9 is there, but no it's little brother. Reply
  • PuravSanghani - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - link

    Hey everyone,

    The thermal and acoustic results are now in the graphs. We pulled the article last week because of the missing data. Enjoy!

    Purav
    Reply
  • Mr Perfect - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - link

    Well, the thermals arn't anything special, but the accustics are the quietest ones on the cart. :) Might not be important to some, but it's got me interested. Reply
  • Lord Raiden - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    Thats what I was exactly thinking. A mistake? Or was it deliberately done?
    In my humble opinion, Seagate has the most respected drivsin the market for so many years so far. I sense some strange shifting of the mood in some reviewers articles around the world favouring the other companies in the reviews. Like Chip, the most selling, most respected magazine has monthly tables with TOP10 drives and seagate scores 9th out of 10 while his scores in particular cateories are comparative with top three every month... i laugh at that table as it is clear evidence of them being not really fair in judgements...
    Anandtech is a respectable site and to believe they wasted a whole page talking about temperature where the drive discussed won't appear at all is simply strange.
    :-) Maybe they got confused whether to add temperatures of two drives in RAID or make an average out of them... ;-)
    Reply
  • Lord Raiden - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    Ooops,
    ... like CHip, the most selling, most respected magazine in my country...
    Reply
  • ATWindsor - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    Yeah, that was one of the most interesting things to know, I want to now how warm and noisy it is...
    Reply
  • Ender17 - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    "We are itching to see the performance of a RAID-0 array with Raptors!"

    Didn't Anand already write an article on that back in 2004?

    http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=21...">http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=21...
    Western Digital's Raptors in RAID-0: Are two drives better than one?
    Reply
  • Scarceas - Saturday, February 04, 2006 - link

    They need to compare a single drive not just to a 2 drive raid array, but 3 and 4 drives as well. And then u start getting into controller performance; it can get laborious. Reply
  • Xenoterranos - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    I think the point is that those tests were done with PATA drives, where a single drive comes close to maxing up the peak theoretical bandidth. With SATA II drives, even two raptors don't come close to the max theoretical bandwidth, so you have a much bigger road to run them on. The point made in that original article still stands: By doing raid-0, you're doubling the chance of data failure and doubling your cost for only a marginal increase. And to most people, loading Quake 10 seconds faster isn't worth 600+ bucks.(now, playing it a 10 fps higher on the other hand...) Reply
  • andrep74 - Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - link

    "With SATA II drives, even two raptors don't come close to the max theoretical bandwidth"

    Especially since they're each on their own controller. Unless you're putting two drives on the same cable, not even PATA drives can come close to saturating the controllers (where I use the term "close" to mean ~90-95%). Most drives cannot even read at 70MB/sec (unless we're talking about solid-state drives). From buffer to controller is another issue entirely, but that rarely has a noticeable impact on overall performance, much less RAID performance.
    Reply
  • Live - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    Well I still believe that the theoretical/syntactical performance is all that really will go up in a Raid-0. Storagereview tester Eugene made this post about Raid-0 in connection to his review of the new 150gb raptor:

    http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?s=&s...">http://forums.storagereview.net/index.p...c=21621&...

    If Anandtech now takes the position that sata/sata2 somehow changed the disadvantages/advantages of Raid-0 on the desktop I really think they should do more to prove it then just a few lines in a hard drive review. Does Anand agree with the conclusions about Raid stated in this review?
    Reply
  • Orbs - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    If you have a large, PATA backup drive, then the chance of failure issue really isn't that big a deal, especially with the longer warranties (Raptors are enterprise class products for WD, aren't they?).

    The interesting question to me is, does performance increase with 10,000 RPMs, SATA bandwidth AND increased platter density.

    I believe the Raptors aren't 3.0 GB/s SATA but they still should have plenty of room to run, and if I remember correctly, the 150 GB Raptors gained their extra space by a higher density platter than the 74 GB version.

    Now that's a setup that might be worth $600. It all depends if it lives up to the potential. AnandTech, let's get a SATA RAID-0 Shoot Out going!!
    Reply
  • Orbs - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    Oh, and in general, great articles lately :) Reply
  • DS Delaroca - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    i think he means the new raptors WD1500ADFD 150GB on a raid setup. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now