Introduction

Last week, Seagate officially announced their 7200.9 desktop hard disk drive line, which brought 3.0Gbps transfer rates, a barrage of SATA features, and a new capacity to bring Seagate to share the top of the mountain with Hitachi. We promised benchmarks and we like to keep our promises.

As soon as we ended our call with Seagate, we went ahead and placed the order for the 500GB version of the 7200.9 with 16MB of cache. Being the newest and highest capacity in Seagate's line of hard drives, we chose to look at it exclusively. For now, we will compare the 500GB drive's performance to some of its older predecessors, like the 7200.7 120GB model, and the 7200.8 400GB model that we looked at a few months back, both with 8MB cache and the first generation 1.5Gbps transfer rates.

We've expanded a few of our original benchmarks and have added a few new tests to make this the most extensive review of a hard drive yet. Take a look at how Seagate's 500GB 7200.9 desktop drive performs.

The Test
POST A COMMENT

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • gutharius - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    Wanted to ask if during the benchmarking your removed the jumper that sets the Barracuda to SATA150 as opposed to SATA300? Seagate manufactures this drive with the drive set to run SATA150, for compatibility reasons with the VIA chipset. Please check this as I think this drive would fair much better if it were set to run in SATA300 not SATA150. Reply
  • ROcHE - Friday, February 10, 2006 - link

    This is getting confusing with all those platters size. Would be great to have these compaired. Reply
  • kd4yum - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link

    Hey
    The whole NCQ process has its 'glamour' from SCSI. But really, SCSI just brought it down from Mainframe tech. IF you got 100+ people working a DL/1 or DB2 database, then 'Elevator' queuing pays. Maybe also in a file server (SCSI). But forget it in a Personal Computer! Who you gonna queue?
    Its like trying to do file compression in software during a backup. You lose more in computation than you gain in I/O.
    sorry for the flame
    Reply
  • eastvillager - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link

    You know how your mouth starts to water right before you're about to vomit? :-) Reply
  • Peter - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link

    yeah right ... I was so bored with those results I started drooling. Reply
  • formulav8 - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    I really do not care for the style of this article/review from this new guy. (I am guessing he is new? Don't reconize the name?)

    I can definitely tell if Anand himself his the author of the article/review or if its one of his fill-in guys. But they do seem to be getting better with time.

    And as many others has said, the title of this article is completely 'false' since the review clearly shows the drive to be average at most. This drive is dissappointing for the features it has. High density platters and 16MB cache and it still gets beat by the older 8MB Cache/Lower Density platter drives. Unless I am looking at the graphs wrong??


    Jason
    Reply
  • Scrogneugneu - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Unless I am looking at the graphs wrong??


    Well, look at the graphs the way you want, the middle will always stay in the middle...
    Reply
  • tomoyo - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    Well first of all, I fully agree that the title "mouthwatering" makes no sense whatsoever. Even the conclusion is so-so at best...if the seagate drive had beaten all the other 7200rpm drives..that would be true mouthwatering numbers. It's not even a winner in terms of storage since there's already 500gb drives out there. Nor does it advance platter sizes like the single platter design. So that title is completely false in my eyes.

    Secondly, I've noticed the writing and analysis has gone greatly downhill since Anand himself hasn't been writing as much. Anand tends to have some insightful commentary on the new technology involved and explainations of the numbers. There's at best shallow explanations of numbers and nothing really distinguishing what's really happening with the benchmarks. And as noted, there's nothing that explains all the different platter sizes in any depth, nor into what pluses or minuses the full SATA 2.5 interface might have in terms of benchmarks and usability. I have to say this is a very disappointing overall job, and I hope the writing and analysis increase by a magnitude of at least 10 to keep up to anandtech standards.
    Reply
  • Veerappan - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    On the final words page is a pic of a read speed test that was performed on this drive.

    http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/storage/seagat...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/sto...eagate_b...

    Maybe I am seeing this wrong (or it could be a program limitation), but why is this program reporting that the theoretical limit was 150MB/s? If this drive was being tested at 3.0Gb/s, shouldn't that figure be roughly double what it is?
    Reply
  • kd4yum - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link

    Yeah
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now