Feature Set: Hitachi 7K1000


The external design of the Hitachi 7K1000 is the same as the majority of the TK or K series drives. The drive is based on the industry standard 3.5" form factor platform and would normally have the pertinent part number and warranty information embossed on a white sticker on the top of the casing. However, our O.E.M. sample was graciously provided by Dell and does not include this information. The only other differences between the O.E.M. and retail units will be the inclusion of an accessory kit, HD Feature Tool software (that can be downloaded separately), and the obligatory retail packaging.


The Deskstar 7K1000 ships with the Serial ATA data and power connector along with a space for a 4-pin Molex power connector designed for use with older ATX power supplies. Our early press photos included the 4-pin Molex connector but it appears the inclusion of it will be at the discretion of the O.E.M. or distribution locality. The 32MB of cache memory and controller logic is located on the outer side of the PCB.



Hitachi offers their excellent DOS based HD Feature Tool that allows the user to view the specifics of the drive and change certain options such as S.M.A.R.T., AAM, Power Management, and read and write optimizations. Our drive arrived with Automatic Acoustic Management turned on and set to the quietest level. We were able to easily set different levels or turn off AAM altogether. We found in our limited acoustical testing there was not a real difference between the 128 and 256 setting. Performance was slightly affected with AAM implemented but we felt the benefits of having it turned on outweighed any performance impact.

Hard Disk Test Comparison and Features

Hard Drive Specifications
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 1000GB HDS721010KLA330 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB ST3750640AS Western Digital Raptor 150GB WD1500ADFD
Manufacturer's Stated Capacity: 1000.2GB (1 Terabyte) 750GB 150GB
Operating System Stated Capacity: 931.5 GB 698.6 GB 139.73 GB
Interface: SATA 3Gb/s SATA 3Gb/s SATA 1.5Gb/s
Rotational Speed: 7,200 RPM 7,200 RPM 10,000 RPM
Cache Size: 32 MB 16 MB 16 MB
Average Latency: 4.17 ms (nominal) 4.16 ms (nominal) 2.99 ms (nominal)
Read Seek Time: 8.5 ms / 14ms Silent 11 ms 4.6 ms
Number of Heads: 10 8 4
Number of Platters: 5 4 2
Power Draw Idle / Load: 8.1W / 12.8W 9.3W / 12.6W 9.19W / 10.02W
Power Draw Silent I / L: 4.3W / 9.9W - -
Command Queuing: Native Command Queuing Native Command Queuing Native Command Queuing
Warranty: 3 Year - Retail or OEM 5 Year - Retail or OEM 5 Year - Retail or OEM

The Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 is the first 1TB drive to ship based upon manufacturer's specifications with a 750 GB offering scheduled for availability next quarter. Of course the actual capacity of the drive is 931.5 GB, but due to the way manufacturers report capacity the drive is considered to be a 1TB offering. This drive is also Hitachi's first 3.5-inch hard drive to use PMR technology. Additional 1TB versions for the Enterprise and DVR/Set-Top markets will be released later this year.

The 7K1000 features a 5-platter 10-head perpendicular magnetic recording design with rotational speeds at 7200rpm. The cache size has been increased to 32MB from the previous 16MB on the TK series. Hitachi includes their ramp load/unload, advanced low-power idle modes, and thermal-fly height control technologies. This drive series also supports Native Command Queuing and hot-swap capabilities. The Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 drives ship with a three year warranty and additional specifications can be found here.

The Hitachi 7K1000 drive we are reviewing today will be compared directly against the Seagate ST3750640AS 750GB and WD WD1500AHFD 150GB drives in our limited benchmark test suite. We have also included the results of drives from our previous articles and will provide additional results of the 7K1000 in our upcoming 500GB roundup.

Index Test Setup
POST A COMMENT

74 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gary Key - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link

    It has worked well for us to date. We also took readings with several other programs and a thermal probe. All readings were similar so we trust it at this time. I understand your concern as the sensors have not always been accurate. Reply
  • mkruer - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link

    I hate this decimal Byte rating they use. They say the capacity is 1 TeraByte meaning 1,000,000,000,000 Bytes, this actually translates into ~930GB or .93TB that the OS will see using the more commonly used (base 2) metric. This is the metric that people assume you are talking about. When will the drive manufactures get with the picture and list the standard Byte capacity? Reply
  • Spoelie - Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - link

    I don't think it matters all that much, once you heard it you know it. There's not even a competitive marketing advantage or any scamming going on since ALL the drive manufacturers use it and in marketing material there's always a note somewhere explaining 1GB = blablabla bytes. So 160GB on one drive = 160GB on another drive. That it's not the formatted capacity has been made clear for years now, so I think most people who it matters for know. Reply
  • Zoomer - Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - link

    IBM used to not do this. Their advertised 120GB drive was actually 123.xxGB, where the GB referred to the decimal giga. This made useable capacity a little over 120GB. :) Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link

    See above, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix">SI prefix overview and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix">binary prefix overview for details. It's telling that this came into being in 1998, at which time there was a class action lawsuit occurring I believe.

    Of course, you can blame the computer industry for just "approximating" way back when KB and MB were first introduced to be 1024 and 1048576 bytes. It probably would have been best if they had created new prefixes rather than cloning the SI prefixes and altering their meaning.

    It's all academic at this point, and we just try to present the actual result for people so that they understand what is truly meant (i.e. the "Formatted Capacity").
    Reply
  • Olaf van der Spek - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Hitachi Global Storage Technologies announced right before CES 2007 they would be shipping a new 1TB (1024GB) hard disk drive in Q1 of this year at an extremely competitive price of $399 or just about 40 cents per GB of storage.


    The screenshot shows only 1 x 10 ^ 12 bytes. :(

    And I'm wondering, do you know about any plans for 2.5" desktop drives (meaning, not more expensive than cheapest 3.5" drives and better access time)?
    Reply
  • crimson117 - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link

    How many bytes does this drive actually hold? Is it 1,000,000,000,000 bytes or 1,099,511,627,776 bytes?


    It's interesting... it used to not seem like a huge difference, but now that we're approaching such high capacities, it's almost a 100 GB difference - more than most laptop hard disks!
    Reply
  • crimson117 - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link

    I should learn to read: Operating System Stated Capacity: 931.5 GB Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link

    Of course, the standard people decided (AFTER the fact) that we should now use GiB and MiB and TiB for multiples of 1024 (2^10). Most of us grew up thinking 1KB = 1024B, 1MB = 1024KB, etc. I would say the redefinition was in a large part to prevent future class action lawsuits (i.e. I could see storage companies lobbying SI to create a "new" definition). Windows of course continues to use the older standard.

    Long story short, multiples of 1000 are used for referring to bandwidth and - according to the storage sector - storage capacity. Multiples of 1024 are used for memory capacity and - according to most software companies - storage capacity. SI sides with the storage people on the use of mibibytes, gibibytes, etc.
    Reply
  • mino - Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - link

    Ehm, ehm.
    GB was ALWAYS spelled Giga-Byte and Giga- with short "G" is a standard prefix for 10^9 since the 19th century(maybe longer).

    The one who screwed up were the software guys whoe just ignored the fact 1024!=1000 and used the same prefix with different meaning.

    SI for long ignored this stupidity.
    Lately SI guys realized software guys are too careless to accept the reality that 1024 really does not equal 1000.

    It is far better to have some standard way to define 1024-multiples and have many people use old wrong prefixes than to have no such definition at all.

    I remember clearly how confused I was back in my 8th grade on Informatics class when teacher tried(and failed back then) to explain why everywhere SI prefixes mean 10^x but in computers they mean 2^10 aka 1024.
    IT took me some 4 years until I was comfortable with power-of-something nubers enough so that it did not matter whether one said 512 or 2^9 to me.

    This prefix issue is a mess SI did not create nor caused. They are just trying to clean it up in the single possible way.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now