We'll be comparing the performance of the Barracuda 7200.11 with that of a slew of competitors, including some of the latest and greatest Serial ATA drives from Hitachi, Maxtor, Samsung, Seagate, and Western Digital. These drives differ when it comes to external transfer rates, spindle speeds, cache sizes, platter densities, NCQ support, and capacity, all of which can have an impact on performance. Keep in mind the following differences as we move through our benchmarks:
|Max external transfer rate||Spindle speed||Cache size||Platter size||Capacity||Native Command Queuing?|
|Barracuda 7200.7 NCQ||150MB/s||7,200-RPM||8MB||80GB||160GB||Yes|
|Barracuda 7200.9 (160GB)||300MB/s||7,200-RPM||8MB||160GB||160GB||Yes|
|Barracuda 7200.9 (500GB)||300MB/s||7,200-RPM||16MB||125GB||500GB||Yes|
|Caviar SE16 (500GB)||300MB/s||7,200-RPM||16MB||125GB||500GB||Yes|
|Caviar SE16 (750GB)||300MB/s||7,200-RPM||16MB||188GB||750GB||Yes|
|Caviar RE2 (500GB)||300MB/s||7,200-RPM||16MB||125GB||500GB||Yes|
Note that the 250GB Caviar SE16 and the Raptor WD740GD lack support for Native Command Queuing. The WD740GD does support a form of command queuing known as Tagged Command Queuing (TCQ), but host controller and chipset support for TCQ is pretty thin. Our Intel 955X-based test platform doesn't support TCQ.
We have test results from several versions of Western Digital's Caviar SE16 and RE2. To avoid confusion, we'll be listing their capacities in parentheses in each of our graphs.
Since Seagate makes versions of the 7200.7 both with and without NCQ support, the 7200.7 in our tests appears as the "Barracuda 7200.7 NCQ" to clarify that it's the NCQ version of the drive. The other drives aren't explicitly labeled as NCQ drives because they're not available without NCQ support.
Finally, we should note that our WD1500ADFD has a slightly newer firmware revision than the Raptor X sample we've had since February, 2006. The drives still share identical internals, but firmware optimizations could give our newer Raptor an edge over the X in some tests.
Performance data from such a daunting collection of drives can make our graphs a little hard to read, so I've highlighted the Barracuda 7200.11 in bright yellow and its high-capacity competitorsthe Barracuda 7200.10 and ES, the Deskstar 7K1000, the Caviar GP, and the Caviar SE16 and RE2 750GBin pale yellow to set them apart from the others. We also have two sets of IOMeter graphs: one with all the drives, and another with just the 7200.11 and its direct rivals. Most of our analysis will be limited to how the 7200.11 compares with its direct rivals, so it should be easy to follow along.
Our testing methods
All tests were run three times, and their results were averaged, using the following test system.
|Processor||Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz|
|System bus||800MHz (200MHz quad-pumped)|
|Motherboard||Asus P5WD2 Premium|
|North bridge||Intel 955X MCH|
|South bridge||Intel ICH7R|
|Chipset drivers||Chipset 184.108.40.2063
|Memory size||1GB (2 DIMMs)|
|Memory type||Micron DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz|
|CAS latency (CL)||3|
|RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)||3|
|RAS precharge (tRP)||3|
|Cycle time (tRAS)||8|
|Graphics||Radeon X700 Pro 256MB with CATALYST 5.7 drivers|
|Hard drives|| Hitachi 7K500 500GB SATA
Western Digital Caviar SE16 750GB SATA
Maxtor DiamondMax 10 300GB SATA
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 NCQ 160GB SATA
Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 400GB SATA
Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 160GB SATA
Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 500GB SATA
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB SATA
Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB SATA
Western Digital Caviar RE2 400GB SATA
Western Digital Raptor WD740GD 74GB SATA
Western Digital Raptor X 150GB SATA
Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB SATA
Western Digital Caviar RE2 500GB SATA
Western Digital Caviar SE16 500GB SATA
Seagate Barracuda ES 750GB SATA
Samsung SpinPoint T 400GB SATA
Maxtor DiamondMax 11 500GB SATA
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 1TB SATA
Western Digital RE2 750GB SATA
Western Digital Caviar GP 1TB SATA
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1TB SATA
|OS||Windows XP Professional|
|OS updates||Service Pack 2|
We used the following versions of our test applications:
The test systems' Windows desktop was set at 1280x1024 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.
All the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.
|GOG's Steam-y Galaxy storefront enters open beta||27|
|Thermaltake's Versa H15 is a classy microATX chassis||11|
|GeForce GTX 970, 980 now bundled with new Witcher, Batman games||22|
|So how would you replace Windows Media Center?||60|
|Apple releases specifications for third-party Watch bands||8|
|Here's what we made of those leaked AMD slides||12|
|Leaked roadmap charts desktop course for Broadwell, Skylake into 2016||35|
|The curtain falls on Windows Media Center||100|
|The PC Gaming Show provides a dedicated soapbox at E3||11|