Seagate 7200.9 500GB: Mouthwatering Benchmarks
by Purav Sanghani on October 24, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Real World Tests - Multitasking Performance
To provide a real world example of multitasking, we run Outlook and import 450MB of emails into an account. We then time how long it takes our benchmarking utility to zip a single 300MB file. To compare our results, we calculate the difference between the multitasked process and the single task file zip process.
Seagate's 7200.9 did not disappoint here as its 3.0Gb/sec transfer rates helped speed things along. The difference between a stand-alone file zip operation versus a multitasked process was only about 16% compared to a +20% difference using the other drives.
To provide a real world example of multitasking, we run Outlook and import 450MB of emails into an account. We then time how long it takes our benchmarking utility to zip a single 300MB file. To compare our results, we calculate the difference between the multitasked process and the single task file zip process.
| Outlook + Zip a 300MB File Within Drive | ||||||
| NCQ/TCQ Status | Multitasked | File Zip Only | % Difference | |||
| Seagate 7200.9 500GB, 16MB, SATA | w/out NCQ | 69.215 | 59.707 | 15.9% | ||
| w/NCQ | 69.512 | 59.785 | 16.27% | |||
| Hitachi T7K250 | w/out NCQ | 76.543 | 67.057 | 12.39% | ||
| w/NCQ | 79.815 | 65.641 | 21.6% | |||
| Samsung HD160JJ | w/out NCQ | 71.484 | 58.805 | 21.6% | ||
| w/NCQ | 73.554 | 61.068 | 20.4% | |||
| Western Digital WD1600JS | N/A | 74.371 | 61.182 | 21.6% | ||
Seagate's 7200.9 did not disappoint here as its 3.0Gb/sec transfer rates helped speed things along. The difference between a stand-alone file zip operation versus a multitasked process was only about 16% compared to a +20% difference using the other drives.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
Spacecomber - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
The results from these benchmarks were about as mouthwatering as a rice cake with nothing on it.jeffrey - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
Titling the article "Mouthwatering Benchmarks" and then reading the mid-pack performance lowers the author's credibility.The drive is big, but it uses lower density plattters, has the highest idle heat, has the highest heat under load, and is 2.6 decibels louder than a 10Krpm Raptor when transferring. Overall performance was mid-pack and not mouth watering.
****************************************************
It would have been a solid review without the title.
Much better than recent video card reviews.
****************************************************
ss284 - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
Pretty dissapointing figures considering all the marketing crap that was posted a couple weeks back as a full fledged preview on anandtech. The drive neither runs cooler or quieter or faster than the previous generation of drives. Other than the 5 year warranty this drive has nothing over a model from a competing manufacturer, most notably hitachi. Im also suprised that the 160 gb model wasnt tested, since it has 160 gb platters, instead of the 125 in the 500gb model.LoneWolf15 - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
One other thing that it has over Hitachi: Seagate (along with WD and Maxtor) offer advance replacement in the event of failure. Hitachi, unfortunately, does not.It may sound like a minor gripe, but if I'm trying to save a client's data off a failing drive, it's nice to have the replacement drive handy. Since I've also had a drive company lose a drive on me in the RMA process (not a common occurrence, but I've had it happen) I feel far more secure having advance replacement. I do agree though that performance specs are not as good as expected; the difference is small enough that I'd save money and buy the previous Seagate 7200.8 drives.
smn198 - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
Please benchamrk the 160GB modelPenth - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
"you're better off working with a 15K RPM Raptor for now."I think you meant 10K RPM Raptor, unless WD just dropped a bomb.
First Post.