Conclusion

Western Digital and Seagate clearly had very different goals in mind when they created their respective drives, and the benchmark data shows that they each had some success in achieving those goals. Their strengths certainly come with weaknesses attached, however, and it is clear that both drives have shortcomings that would steer many potential buyers elsewhere.

To begin with, neither of these drives is a world-beater in terms of their raw performance. The Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 doesn't show any meaningful improvement over Seagate's previous iteration of drives, and at no time challenged units which have been established as the top performers (Western Digital Raptor and Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000). In fact, the only drive which the 7200.11 did manage to beat consistently was the Western Digital Caviar GP, a drive which abandoned the thought of leading the performance race altogether in favor of being energy efficient. In this category, the Caviar GP performs admirably, requiring less power, producing relatively little heat, and running quietly while still offering competitive performance on the desktop.

At a street price of about $329, it is difficult to recommend the Seagate drive when the faster Hitachi 7K1000 only costs a few dollars more ($350 street) and surpasses the Seagate in most tests. The 7200.11 is also comparatively noisy and runs only slightly cooler than the Hitachi drive. Seagate's 7200.11 offering performs adequately, though the continued issues in the write-intensive benchmarks are troubling. Simply put, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 is outclassed in the 1TB segment. Seagate does offer a five-year warranty (versus three-years for Hitachi), but truthfully the data is usually far more valuable than the drive; if you need to exercise the warranty, you will likely be unhappy regardless of when a drive failure occurs. A good backup plan is definitely recommended if you value your data.

Passing judgment on the Western Digital Caviar GP is a little bit more difficult. Clearly, its performance is less than stellar; the redeeming feature of the Seagate drive is only that it turns in better results than the Western Digital drive. The Caviar GP, however, is not about pure performance. This drive is about running as efficiently as possible, and it does an excellent job in this regard. In situations where a lot of storage is needed, power consumption is at a premium, and noise is a major enemy (read: HTPC setups), the Western Digital Caviar GP may indeed be a very good choice.

Whether it is a better choice than the Hitachi 7K1000 is a matter of debate, however. With AAM on, the Hitachi drive produced only slightly more noise than the Western Digital, though its power consumption was considerably more. In the vast majority of cases, either drive performs adequately for a single instance of any home-brew PVR application, so if the choice is limited to this type of use, the Western Digital drive may be a better choice, particularly given that at $280 it is substantially less expensive than the Hitachi or the Seagate. The price differential is enough in our opinion to offset the performance penalty that comes with choosing the Western Digital over the Hitachi, but plan this decision carefully if you are not utilizing the drive in an HTPC or SFF system.

PCMark Vantage Continued….
Comments Locked

31 Comments

View All Comments

  • Luminair - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link

    "Operating System Stated Capacity"

    Lets be clear so maybe you can be clear in the next article.

    The IEC, IEEE, CPIM, and NIST define Giga (G) as 1,000,000,000 or one billion.

    The same standards organizations define Gibi (Gi) as 1,073,741,824.

    As such, by standard definitions, these hard drives are in fact 1000GB, or 1000 gigabytes.

    Your "Operating System Stated Capacity" really means "Windows Explorer Capacity". Other operating systems don't get it wrong like Windows does. So if you report this wrong information at all, you should make the truth known -- that Windows is well known to WRONGLY report GiB as GB (and MiB for MB and so on).

    Those drives have 1000 gigabytes of space. Windows Explorer and solid state memory companies report the space incorrectly.
  • Luminair - Friday, November 30, 2007 - link

    These guys get it right :) http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=browser&ar...">http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=bro...&ima...
  • valherumk2 - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link

    Looks like another review of the 7200.11 drive where it appears the reviewer didn't remove the jumper limiting it to SATA 1. Interface bandwidth burst rate is over 200MB/s on my 7200.11 with the jumper removed.
  • Zap - Thursday, November 29, 2007 - link

    That's also the first thing that came to my mine... "dude forgot to remove the jumper."
  • Zap - Thursday, November 29, 2007 - link

    That's also the first thing that came to my mine... "dude forgot to remove the jumper."
  • 100proof - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    Dave, is there a reason that Samsung's 1TB drive
    was not included in this review? The drive is
    difficult to obtain in the US but is available in
    other countries at this point in time. Tomshardware
    has already posted a review, and there is also
    discussion taking place on storagereview.com

    Tomshardware Review of Samsung F1 1TB
    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_ove...">http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_ove...

    Storagereview discussion of F1 Series
    http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopi...">http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopi...
  • Dave Robinet - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link

    It's a matter of availability, not of lack of interest. We do like the latest Samsung offerings - they simply didn't have a drive shipped to us in the lab in time for the article.

    If they get us a 1TB drive for us to have a look at, then we'll gladly put it in a future article.

    Thanks for reading!
  • quanta - Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - link

    In the meantime, Tom's hardware did the Samsung Spinpoint F1 review[1], which showed it has great non-server performance. In fact, it outruns WD Raptor WD150ADFD in some tests. Power consumption is between 'cuda 7200.11 and Caviar GP.

    [1] http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_ove...">http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/21/samsung_ove...
  • piasabird - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    You get a lower overall price per Gig by using two 500 gb drives.
  • Googer - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    With a pair of 500GB hard drives, you do not get it in a single volume, power consumption increases, RAID 0 decreases reliability and increases error possibilities.

    The fact that it takes two drive bays is a sore thumb to those who build small form factor multi-media systems with only one drive bay that will also funtion as a Digtal Video Recorder.

    I should also add, this "GREEN" drive is ideal for a TiVO upgrade due to it's large size, quiet operation, low heat, and noise output.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now