Toshiba’s latest desktop hard drive cranks 5TB up to 7,200 RPM

New mechanical hard drives are few and far between, especially in the desktop world. Most recent models have been geared toward servers, NAS systems, and video surveillance rigs. But Toshiba's latest is designed for desktops, and it's not saddled with a sluggish spindle speed. The new 3.5" family spins up to 5TB at 7,200 RPM.

Source: Toshiba

Two members make up the "PH3" series. The PH3500U-1I72 has 5TB of storage, while the PH3400U-1I72 is limited to 4TB. Both come with a 6Gbps Serial ATA interface and 128MB of DRAM cache.

The press release is light on details, and the drives don't appear on Toshiba's storage site, so there's little in the way of additional information. However, it's worth noting that Toshiba introduced a 5TB enterprise-class hard drive back in May. That drive has 1TB per platter, and a similar foundation likely underpins the PH3.

Although the official release prices the 5TB drive at $399 and the 4TB at $299, both are massively discounted already. Toshiba's online store lists the 5TB for $319.20 and the 4TB for $239.20. Those prices are good until January 15, according to the site, and drives are scheduled to ship by November 18.

The discounts put Toshiba's latest mechanical between Seagate's Enterprise Capacity and HGST's Deskstar NAS drives. The Seagate sells for $336.99 and has a longer five-year warranty, while the Hitach is covered for three years but rings in at only $249.99. A 6TB version of the Deskstar is also available for $299.99. None of those alternatives are technically desktop units, but they should all work with standard PCs.

Comments closed
    • divide_by_zero
    • 5 years ago

    This is good news, though I have no interest in this drive per se.

    Just hoping that as more 5/6GB+ drives become available, the 3/4TB drives drop in price. My WHS is always hungry for more storage.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 5 years ago

    Can’t understand why any mechanical drives are selling without AT LEAST the boring and yet vaguely useful 8GB of flash that Seagate’s hybrid drives have. At this point, PREMIUM drives should have more spinning storage AND more flash.

    Why is this so hard?

      • Krogoth
      • 5 years ago

      There’s no point.

      Hybrid HDDs never made any real sense in most cases. They only work if you git a single 2.5″ bay in a laptop and want something faster than a normal laptop HDD, but SSDs are too expensive or don’t have enough capacity for your needs.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 5 years ago

        What? Almost every filesystem has superblocks and indexes that are hit very often. All hybrid drives [b<]dramatically[/b<] increase performance.

          • Deanjo
          • 5 years ago

          When drives are being used to hold and infrequently access large files hybrid drives just increase the chance of failure and data loss with next to no benefit.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 5 years ago

            When being used to hold and infrequently access large files, even SSDs aren’t much faster than Hard Drives. Or hell, Tape Drives for that matter.

            But people use Hard Drives for more than just one kind of file. Backups, Game Data (50GB for Assassin’s Creed Unity! A few games like that will max out your SSD).

            The point of a SSD Cache is to improve performance in the general case. Boot times are reported to be 2x or 3x faster than your typical hard drive. Sure, its still not as fast as a SSD, but SSD Hybrids offer a good balance between the two.

            Besides, with Windows 8.1 Host Hints support for SSD Hybrids, we can expect longer-lasting caches for the important stuff. OS support has somewhat improved for SSD Hybrids at almost no cost to the consumer.

      • dragontamer5788
      • 5 years ago

      You mean… the 4TB SSD Hybrid that Seagate is selling at a [url=http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Desktop-Hybrid-3-5-Inch-ST4000DX001<]somewhat reasonable $175[/url<]?

        • Deanjo
        • 5 years ago

        Oh yes… the every reliable Seagates…… they have a hard enough time making one reliable with just platters.

          • dragontamer5788
          • 5 years ago

          Fair enough.

          Although the larger Seagates seem significantly more reliable according to the Blackblaze study. 4TB Seagates fail at only 4%, significantly better than their other models.

          [url<]https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-hard-drive-should-i-buy/[/url<] [url<]https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-update-september-2014/[/url<] [quote<]We are focusing on 4TB drives for new pods. For these, our current favorite is the Seagate Desktop HDD.15 (ST4000DM000).[/quote<] The 4% failure rate on the 4TB model is significantly better than WD Red's 8% failure rate.

            • Deanjo
            • 5 years ago

            [quote<]Although the larger Seagates seem significantly more reliable according to the Blackblaze study. 4TB Seagates fail at only 4%, significantly better than their other models. [/quote<] They have also been out the shortest amount of time extend the period of time and they will likely fall into line with other Seagate offerings. Personally I have been using Hitachi platters and WD blacks for the last few years with great success. Seagates...... not so much (100% failure rate, not one made it past 3 years).

            • Waco
            • 5 years ago

            I have thousands of Seagate drives running 24/7 pretty damn reliably to counter your few drives with bad luck.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 5 years ago

            Including what I manage at work, I’ve got approximately 6 Seagates 3TB. One has kicked the can after 3 years. So my (very very poor) statistics I guess measures ~18.33% failure rate.

            Obviously, a single failure on a small sample of drives isn’t a statistic. (You need at least 10 failures before you have hard data). Nonetheless, my experience somewhat matches the Blackblaze study.

            The other drives that have failed on me are WD Green drives… for what its worth. (much smaller sample size). I don’t actually own any Hitatchi / HGST drives, but have begun to recommend them based on the Blackblaze study.

            Although, the Seagate drives might be the best buy in all honesty for a RAID NAS box. Seagates and WD Green drives have consistently been the cheapest… cheap enough to make up for the failure rate. NAS Boxes don’t run off of the hard drives. With proper monitoring, replacing a drive and rebuilding is relatively easy.

            The higher reliability drives seem like they’d be more useful for a typical desktop user… where the cost of replacement is rather high. (Even if you are keeping backups, you’d still have to reinstall the OS if your system drive failed… which is time that could have been spent elsewhere)

            • Deanjo
            • 5 years ago

            [quote<]Obviously, a single failure on a small sample of drives isn't a statistic. (You need at least 10 failures before you have hard data). Nonetheless, my experience somewhat matches the Blackblaze study.[/quote<] Trust me, my personal sample sizes far exceed 10 drives (heck I have that many in just one mATX at a time).

            • Waco
            • 5 years ago

            Is it in the thousands?

            • Deanjo
            • 5 years ago

            I put the [b<]millions[/b<] that have been used in Apple products against your "thousands". Least reliable brand while I was there according to their warranty and engineering dept spanning 5 years of models.

            • Waco
            • 5 years ago

            Laptop drives? I don’t care. Desktop/enterprise drives in a 24/7 environment? That I care about.

      • Klimax
      • 5 years ago

      No point. Either data is already in RAM cache or won’t be in SSD part anyway making it moot. Already with 8GB you see that effect.

    • Chrispy_
    • 5 years ago

    I’m struggling to see the point in 7200rpm drives these days, it just means hotter, noisier, louder.

    I guess if you’re regularly streaming huge amounts of sequential data to a drive from SSD then it makes sense, but most desktops are saddled by their network interface running at 1Gbps which translates to a real-world speed of about 105MB/s

    Even older 2TB “green” drives running at 5400rpm can reach 105MB/s without any fuss, so why would you bother with hotter, noisier, louder drives for extra speed that you just can’t use?

      • dragontamer5788
      • 5 years ago

      [quote<] Even older 2TB "green" drives running at 5400rpm can reach 105MB/s without any fuss, so why would you bother with hotter, noisier, louder drives for extra speed that you just can't use?[/quote<] "Green" drives have a 3 to 5 second delay before anything happens, because they keep [b<]turning off[/b<] to save power. There's nothing quite as frustrating as hearing the hard drives "spin back up" very slowly just so that [b<]Firefox[/b<] launches or so that my 50kb word document opens. Anyone who uses a "primary" drive (or expects to game off of a hard drive) should get a 7200 RPM drive and avoid the "green" drives. If you've got a large 256GB or 512GB SSD, maybe you can use a Green Drive for the bigger stuff where the delay isn't quite as big of a deal... But honestly, if you plan on ever using the hard drive for realtime, you'll want a 7200 RPM drive. It honestly makes a big difference. Even those with a small 128gb SSD will end up using the "backup drive" for video gaming, or larger applications. (Assassin's Creed Unity hits 50GB, the Witcher 2 hits 15GB. You really don't have much room on the SSD for all your games). Hitting that new "zone" which finally hits the hard drive will cause major stutter on a green drive, while the 7200RPM drives will probably be fine.

        • maxxcool
        • 5 years ago

        not to mention backblaze calls them the most unreliable drives ion earth..(almost)

        • Eversor
        • 5 years ago

        You can (and should) shut down the power management features with a program. It’s WD Idle 3 and available on WD’s website or you can use an open source utility if you’re on Linux. If you don’t turn it off, the drives frequently fail due to too many parking and unparking cycles, since they’re rated for something like 300k and this goes in a couple of years of frequent use.

        My WD Green 1TB is pushing 5 years but it was from a good series, nowadays if I have to buy anything I scour Newegg for reviews first to try and catch a glimpse of reliability.

          • dragontamer5788
          • 5 years ago

          Thanks for the tip. This sounds like the issue I was running into and looks like it addresses the problem.

        • egon
        • 5 years ago

        [quote<] "Green" drives have a 3 to 5 second delay before anything happens, because they keep turning off to save power. There's nothing quite as frustrating as hearing the hard drives "spin back up" very slowly just so that Firefox launches or so that my 50kb word document opens.[/quote<] Think you got the wrong impression at some point what it is that's different about 'green' drive behaviour. Spin down (standby) is not exclusive to green drives, is set by the OS, and typically happens after say 10 mins idle time by default. If you set it to 'never' in the OS power managemeent settings, green drives won't spin down at all (internal ones, at least - the behaviour of drives in external enclosures is less consistent). The main issue with green drives is aggressive head parking on some models (say after 8 seconds idle), which is independent of the OS, and introduces a brief delay when accessing non-cached data. Not the several second delay waiting for the drive to spin up, but a fraction of a second before the drive starts seeking and reading data. It can be annoyingly noticable and unfortunately is not accounted for the way drives are reviewed and benchmarked.

          • dragontamer5788
          • 5 years ago

          I’ve definitely have had multiple seconds of delay on a WD Green drive I bought a few years ago.

          I know about standby from the OS and that was the first thing I tried to turn off.

          I’ve got something like 10 drives across multiple home computers, and more that I manage at work. Seagate 7200 3TB, WD Green about four WD Blacks, a WD Blue, and a couple of SSD in my laptop and HTPC.

          [b<]ONLY[/b<] the green drive has the multiple seconds of delay when standby is turned off. It is quite annoying.

            • Chrispy_
            • 5 years ago

            Windows advanced power options has “Turn off hard disk after x minutes”.

            It has to be set to “never”, otherwise your disk [b<]WILL[/b<] be turned off. It doesn't matter whether it's a red, green, blue or black drive. It doesn't even care whether the spindle speed is 5400 or 7200rpm, it just looks at the numeric value of [i<]x minutes[/i<] and turns off the drive!

            • egon
            • 5 years ago

            Here’s a tip for Windows users who don’t fully sleep their PC at night for various reasons, would nevertheless like drives to spin down whenever the system’s inactive during that period, but don’t want them to ever spin down during the day (because encountering the spin-up delay with any regularity sucks).

            Set up the following command in Task Scheduler to trigger daily just after bed time:

            powercfg -change -disk-timeout-ac 5

            Where 5 is the number of idle minutes after which the hard disks go to sleep. Then set up the following command to trigger just before you get up:

            powercfg -change -disk-timeout-ac 0

            0 is the same as setting sleep to ‘Never’.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 5 years ago

            [quote<]It has to be set to "never", otherwise your disk WILL be turned off.[/quote<] I don't think you get it. These drives park their heads aggressively and have long spinup times regardless of your "Windows Advanced Power Options". Eversor and Kaleid get it however. It seems like they're onto something with this "wdidle3" program. Unfortunately, my WD Green already died (probably due to this whole head-parking issue they are talking about) so I'm not going to be able to test the solution. I don't plan on buying any "green" drives anymore.

            • Chrispy_
            • 5 years ago

            No, *you* don’t get it.

            Green drives don’t spin down because they’re green, they spin down because your system is telling them to.
            Head-parking is completely different, should be disabled on a desktop drive, and doesn’t incur more than an additional 50ms or so of delay.

            • Waco
            • 5 years ago

            Something on your system is misconfigured then…

        • albundy
        • 5 years ago

        i can barely get half of that on my POS 2tb green drives. most of the time it hovers around 36MB/s. oh yeah, 7200rpm is very necessary if you cant deliver decent transfer rates.

          • Chrispy_
          • 5 years ago

          Then there’s something [b<]seriously wrong[/b<] with your drives or configuration; They're running at the speed of an IDE drive from 15 years ago! [url=http://www.storagereview.com/images/low_power_2mb_sequentialtransfer.png<]This is what you should be getting[/url<] from an outdated green drive circa 2010. A modern low-rpm drive like my WD Reds starts at about 160MB/s on the outer sectors and [i<]never[/i<] drops below 100MB/s, even at the inner sectors. High capacity 7200rpm drives can top 200MB/s on the outer sectors now.

        • Kaleid
        • 5 years ago

        There is a tool to switch the head park off.

    • willmore
    • 5 years ago

    A 5 TB and a 4 TB drive sounds pretty ‘me, too’ at this point, but the more the merrier.

    Also, I wonder if these will keep the good reliability that the drive failure reports have been seeing with Toshiba drives? It would be nice if that was their differientator.

    • BIF
    • 5 years ago

    This is good, very good.

    It’s becoming more and more difficult to squeeze two full backups of each partition onto a single 4TB drive, so it’s time for me to start thinking about new drives. And the faster spindle speed helps ensure that backups are done by sunrise, even for the biggest partitions.

    I can still get away with a single full backup of each partition onto a 3TB drive, which is fine for an offsite backup or an annual one off destined for the archive bin, but my “daily drivers” (haha, see what I did there?) need to be bigger, because I like to keep two complete revolving cycles; three for system and app drives.

    • Walkintarget
    • 5 years ago

    That’s what I did – bought two 4TBs instead of a 5 or 6TB. Price was about the same – $300, and I also bought NAS drives with 5 year warranties. Altho one 6TB looks appealing, two 4s is a safer (and larger) bet.

    Whatever I run gets backed up to a 10TB WHS, so it would be hard for me to actually lose any data. I learned the value of full backups many years ago.

      • Waco
      • 5 years ago

      WHS doesn’t protect against bitrot AFAIK…

    • sweatshopking
    • 5 years ago

    I can’t imagine trusting 5tb of data to a single point of failure. NEVER AGAIN WILL I LOSE A TB OF (IN MY CASE UNIMPORTANT GARBAGE) DATA TO A DEAD DRIVE.

    FIRST

    DON’T YOU JERKS – ME FOR FIRSTING.

      • Firestarter
      • 5 years ago

      so, buy 2?

        • sweatshopking
        • 5 years ago

        I’M NOT MADE OF SOLID GOLD, FIRESTARTER, I’M NOT SOLID GOLD. I CAN’T JUST BUY EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD ALL THE TIME.

          • Helmore
          • 5 years ago

          Being made of solid gold wouldn’t be very helpful in buying anything. Unless your hair, nails and shit were also pure gold…..

            • sweatshopking
            • 5 years ago

            EXACTLY. HELMORE AGREES, FIRESTARTER. EVEN GOLD PEOPLE CAN’T BUY 2 HARD DRIVES.

            • BIF
            • 5 years ago

            You can buy a gold camera. 24k bling, by Nikon.

            [url<]http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8641626030/price-released-for-brikk-s-24k-gold-nikon-df[/url<]

          • MadManOriginal
          • 5 years ago

          You’re solid gold in my <3

            • sweatshopking
            • 5 years ago

            I LOVE YOU SO MUCH .

          • albundy
          • 5 years ago

          you sure about that? i’ve heard otherwise!

      • BIF
      • 5 years ago

      You place far too much importance and give yourself way too much credit for being first, especially when you weren’t; not really. Geoff wrote the article, so he was “first”. 🙂

      I think you should stick with 3.5″ floppy diskettes. FAT32, no complicated or scary NTFS for those little guys, no sir! They were in those durable plastic cases of any color in the rainbow and more than your best monitor can display I’m sure. The best ones come with stick-on paper labels so you won’t have to guess what’s on them. They had that little sliding metal door for fabulous protection; spring-loaded too, so very modern in that 80’s way which I think you’d love. And they had those impenetrable little sliding tabs to protect your valuable data (that’s what you really meant, right?) from accidental overwrites.

      The only drawback is they could hold over a megabyte of data, so maybe that’s too much capacity for you. But you could just make sure you only fill them up halfway and use a new diskette; that might keep you from the chance of losing a lot of data all at once. You should probably get two drives for your computer to show how modern you are, and look into bulk options for these diskettes today, because this could be the hottest technology you’ll discover in this decade.

        • sweatshopking
        • 5 years ago

        THANKS FOR THE GREAT ADVICE. I LOVE COLORS, WINDOWS 8, SO THESE SHOULD BE RIGHT UP MY ALLEY!

          • BIF
          • 5 years ago

          Don’t forget to get the latest copy of DOS.

            • sweatshopking
            • 5 years ago

            SHOULD I USE DOS OR OS2?

      • NTMBK
      • 5 years ago

      I’m not negging you for firsting, I’m negging you for SSKing

        • sweatshopking
        • 5 years ago

        YOU CAN’T TOUCH ME. YOU HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN HERE A YEAR YET. I’M A COFOUNDER. YOUR -‘S DON’T HURT ME.

      • James296
      • 5 years ago

      still haven’t gotten that caps lock key fixed yet, eh?

        • Chrispy_
        • 5 years ago

        It’s fixed all right….

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 5 years ago

      I’m [b<]-[/b<] ing you for a ridiculous statement rather than for the usual reasons. No matter the size of your storage device, you need a backup. Hard-drives are cheap enough that an easy thing to do is to copy your important data onto a second hard-drive periodically. Set up a monthly, weekly or daily schedule, depending on how important the data are to you. If your data are really important, copy them onto an external drive and put that one in an off-site location (safe deposit box, relatives' houses, etc.).

        • sweatshopking
        • 5 years ago

        Besides the fact that I did say my data was unimportant garbage, I backup all my photos to one drive. They’re the only thing I actually care about at all.

        And wtf jae, you usually minus me? I thought we were bros for life!! What was that blood pact for? We rubbed our bloody hands together!

          • derFunkenstein
          • 5 years ago

          That was to aid in spreading disease. Gross. Stop doing that.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This