The 7200.7 line brought us drives with capacities between 40GB to 200GB in PATA version as well as the native SATA (as opposed to bridged SATA solutions) versions with 1.5Gb/sec transfer rates and optional Native Command Queuing, and as you can guess from the name, 7200RPM spindle speeds throughout the entire line. After the 7200.7 series, Seagate decided to split the 7200.x family into two separate lines when introducing the 7200.8 series. The new model carried capacities in the 250GB to 400GB range, again, with both PATA and SATA interfaces, so the 7200.8 was a continuation to higher capacities.

Click to enlarge.

Today, Seagate officially announces the joining of the 7200.7 and 7200.8 drives with its 7200.9 line of hard disk drives. The new line ranges from 40GB to 500GB and has models with 2MB, 8MB, or a whopping 16MB buffer. The release of the 7200.9 product line announces the 9th generation of Seagate's 7200RPM desktop hard drives and they conform to the latest in SATA standards ("SATA 2.5"), including the 3Gb/sec transfer rates.

The 7200.9 line of hard disk drives brings an end to the separation of powers and is aimed at mid to high end desktop and gaming PCs, media PCs, and low end servers. This classification gives us a bit of insight at the pricing of these new drives, but we will look into the costs of Seagate's new line of mid-performance hard drives a bit later. Right now, we'd like to cover some information that we received during a technical briefing with Seagate's 7200.9 product marketing manager.

The 7200.9 Series


View All Comments

  • ksherman - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link

    and i just bought a 400GB Seagate... oh well. Reply
  • Live - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link

    The sound info from Seagate is so obvious bull. And also the comments regretfully often found here @ AT:

    Combine this with the hum of case and heat sink fans, and the hard drive is basically silent.

    A sound being drowned out does not make it silent. And assuming that everybody uses 8 delta case fans at full speed and thus does not care about the sound from hard drives, PSUs and graphic cards is just plain stupid in my opinion. With today’s water cooling and heat pipe technologies a lot of people are turning to the silent side. A hard drive in my system is one of the noisiest components.

    Don’t know what I am commenting tough, I thought I clicked an article but it turned out to be nothing more then an advert. Leave this kind of info for the news section and be an independent hardware site that you usually do so well.
  • segagenesis - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link

    Well thats somewhat obvious, and my experience with Seagate dictates they havent been as quiet as the old Barracuda IV was. Those drives *were* basically silent, you could almost never hear them... even if they were under load. Reply
  • andyc - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link

    How would the Seagate's new line compare with the Western Digital's:
    "Western Digital Caviar RE2 400GB 7200RPM SATA 16MB 8.7"
    "Western Digital Caviar SE16 400GB 7200RPM SATA 16MB 8.9MS"
    "Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB 7200RPM SATA2 16MB 8.9MS"

    I've had nothing but good experiences with Western Digital...but I might turn over to Seagate if they turn out to be more superb.
  • coldpower27 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link

    The Seagate line I think matches the Western Digital line very well.

    It has less platters at 400GB capacity, 3x133 Design vs WD 4x100 design and less platters at 250GB 2x125 vs WD 3x83. Seagate has SATA2 from 80GB-500GB, where WD is limited to 120GB to 250GB for their SATA2 drives, only downfall is that to get the 16MB buffer is only available at 300GB & higher for Seagate, where WD has a single model SATA2 drive with 16MB Buffer the 250GB model, the other 120GB to 250GB drives are like Seagate limited to 8MB buffer. Seagates 80GB to 250GB for 8MB is competitive. Plus seektime is 8.5ms. Plus for Seagate their drives get a 5 Year Warranty, not like WD which only get 5 Years on it's RE and Raptors lines I believe and 3 Years on the rest.
  • coldpower27 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link

    Is the Seagate 7200.9 16MB 300GB 3x100 or 2x150 with the advent of 160GB Platter technology from Seagate.
  • tomoyo - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link

    If you look at the table of specs, you'll notice the 300GB has the same wattage as the smaller models including the 1 platter(12.4/12.8/7.2 watts). Also it's got the same acoustics as the smaller models of 2.5 idle and 2.8 seek. The larger 400/500 models have slightly higher wattage and 2.8 idle/3.2 seek. This leads me to strongly believe that the 300GB model is also a 2 platter design using 150GB a platter...and is therefore slightly short stroked on a 160GB platter. I hope I'm proven right, because assuming it's a reasonably quiet's definitely the one I WANT! Looks like a candidate for the best drive with the features of quiet, a decent amount of storage, SATA 2.5 and a 5 year warranty! Reply
  • coldpower27 - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link

    Yeah I hope so to, I am so far fond of the 2 platter design drives. I don't really want to a larger number of platters if unecessary. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link

    I believe it's 3x100GB. It might also be 3x133, but only using five heads (i.e. 2.5 platters). Actually, 5 heads seems more likely, but I don't know for sure.

    There are a few specific platter sizes that are common. Right now, those are (as far as I know):

    60GB (old and on the way out, if not gone already)
    80GB (fading fast)
    100GB (still in production, but diminishing over time)
    120/125GB (Relatively new; different brands might go one way or the other)
    133GB (only a slight bump from 120/125, really - still new. Some "failed" platters might be formatted for 120/125GB)
    160GB (brand new starting with certain Seagate 7200.9)

    There is variance to a degree within those sizes. I think some of the 250GB drives, for example, use 133GB platters that are downgraded to 125GB capacity.
  • semo - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link

    why don't some hdd maker sticks 2-3gb of flash memory to a 200gb something hdd.

    i don't even have to list the possibilities of such a solution, do i?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now