Seagate’s Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB hard drive

Manufacturer Seagate
Model Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB
Price (MSRP)
Availability Now

It’s been more than 18 months since Hitachi reached the terabyte mark with the Deskstar 7K1000. In that time, all the major players in the hard drive industry have spun up terabytes of their own, and in some cases, offered multiple models targeting different markets. With so many options available and more than enough time for the milestone capacity’s initial buzz to fade, it’s no wonder that the current crop of 1TB drives is more affordable than we’ve ever seen from a flagship capacity. The terabyte, it seems, is old news.

One-point-five terabytes is the new hotness these days—the next step up the capacity scale. This time it was Seagate who struck first with a version of its Barracuda 7200.11 rippling with four 375GB platters. In addition to raising the bar on the capacity front, the higher areal density of these platters promises to improve performance dramatically. In fact, Seagate says its latest ‘cuda can sustain transfer rates up to 120MB/s, which would put the drive squarely in VelociRaptor territory.

So the Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB has the potential to be a leader in both performance and capacity. And it costs much less than you might expect from a new flagship. That sounds like the perfect hard drive recipe, but does the one-point-five measure up? We’ve squared it off against some of the fastest, highest capacity drives on the market to find out.

New platters for an existing platform

Although the Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB breaks new ground on the capacity front and may very well be the fastest 7,200-RPM hard drive we’ve tested, it’s not an entirely new product. Indeed, the Barracuda 7200.11 family has been around for about a year now, and this latest step up the capacity ladder simply adds denser platters to the equation.

Seagate launched the 7200.11 with a terabyte model that packed four 250GB platters. You’ll find the same number of platters in the one-point-five, but this time they weigh in at 375GB each—an increase in areal density of 50%. Obviously, this jump in areal density was essential in allowing Seagate to reach the 1.5TB mark without having to resort to a fifth platter. Bumping up the Barracuda’s per-platter capacity should also pave the way for faster sequential transfer rates.


Maximum external transfer rate
300MB/s

Sustained data rate
120MB/s
Random read seek time
Random write seek time
Average rotational latency 4.16ms

Spindle speed
7,200RPM

Available
capacities
1.5TB

Cache size
32MB

Platter size
375GB

Idle power consumption
8W

Idle acoustics
2.7 bels

Seek acoustics
2.9 bels

Warranty length
Five years

Although the 1.5TB’s 375GB platters have a much higher areal density than those of the rest of the 7200.11 line, their advantage over other drives in the market is less substantial. Samsung and Western Digital both offer drives with 334GB platters, and we’ll see in a moment how their performance compares in both sequential throughput drag races and real-world file copy tests. The one-point-five’s claimed sustained throughput of 120MB/s certainly sets expectations high, though.

As one might expect from a high-end desktop drive, the new head of the 7200.11 family comes equipped with a 300MB/s Serial ATA interface and 32MB of cache memory. The ‘cuda’s spindle speed remains at 7,200RPM, just like every other desktop drive short of Western Digital’s Raptors.

Home theater PCs tasked with recording HD video seem like a good match for the one-point-five’s expansive capacity, and Seagate has done what it can to keep the drive quiet. Like the rest of the 7200.11 family, the 1.5TB model uses a SoftSonic motor that Seagate says keeps noise levels down in the 2.7-2.9 bels range. The drive consumes just 8W of power at idle, too, so it’s not going to be throwing much heat into an enclosure.

Seagate currently offers the best warranties in the business, covering all of its internal hard drive products for five years. 1.5TB might be a drop in the bucket five years from now, but the additional coverage is certainly appreciated, especially with desktop drives from other manufacturers typically only covered for three years. However, we should note that Seagate’s five-year warranty only applies if you’ve bought the drive through an authorized vendor. Fortunately, there are plenty of those to choose from, including Newegg, ZipZoomfly, Fry’s, Tiger Direct, and even Wal-Mart, among others. Seagate doesn’t make users jump through ridiculous registration hoops just to quality for coverage, either.

Test notes
We’ll be comparing the performance of the Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB with that of a slew of competitors, including some of the latest and greatest Serial ATA drives from Hitachi, Samsung, Seagate, and Western Digital. These drives differ when it comes to external transfer rates, spindle speeds, cache sizes, platter densities, 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

Barracuda 7200.11
300MB/s 7,200-RPM 32MB 250GB 1TB

Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB

300MB/s

7,200-RPM

32MB
375GB
1.5TB

Barracuda ES.2
300MB/s 7,200-RPM 32MB 250GB 1TB

Caviar Black
300MB/s 7,200-RPM 32MB 334GB 1TB

Caviar GP
300MB/s 5,400-7,200-RPM 16MB 250GB 1TB


Caviar SE16 (640GB)
300MB/s 7,200-RPM 16MB 320GB 640GB

Deskstar 7K1000
300MB/s 7,200-RPM 32MB 200GB 1TB


Raptor WD1500ADFD
150MB/s 10,000-RPM 16MB 75GB 150GB

RE2-GP
300MB/s 5,400-7,200-RPM 16MB 250GB 1TB

RE3
300MB/s 7,200-RPM 32MB 334GB 1TB

SpinPoint F1
300MB/s 7,200-RPM 32MB 334GB 1TB

VelociRaptor VR150
300MB/s 10,000-RPM 16MB 150GB 300GB

Performance data from such a daunting collection of drives can make our bar graphs a little hard to read, so we’ve colored the bars by manufacturer, with the one-point-five appearing in brighter green than the rest of Seagate’s drives. Pay close attention to how the 7200.11 1.5TB stacks up against not only its 1TB predecessor, which we’ve simply referred to as the Barracuda 7200.11, but also the 334GB-per-platter SpinPoint F1 and Caviar Black.

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
Bios revision 0422
North bridge Intel 955X MCH
South bridge Intel ICH7R
Chipset drivers Chipset 7.2.1.1003
AHCI/RAID 5.1.0.1022
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
Audio codec ALC882D
Graphics Radeon X700 Pro 256MB with CATALYST 5.7 drivers
Hard drives Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1TB
Seagate Barracuda ES.2 1TB
Samsung SpinPoint F1 1TB
Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 1TB

Western Digital RE2- GP 1TB

Western Digital Caviar GP 1TB

Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB

Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB


Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB

Western Digital Caviar SE16 640GB

Western Digital RE3 1TB


Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB
OS Windows XP Professional
OS updates Service Pack 2

Thanks to NCIX for getting us the Deskstar 7K1000 and SpinPoint F1.

Our test system was powered by OCZ PowerStream power supply units.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

The test systems’ Windows desktop was set at 1280×1024 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.

WorldBench
WorldBench uses scripting to step through a series of tasks in common Windows applications. It then produces an overall score. WorldBench also spits out individual results for its component application tests, allowing us to compare performance in each. We’ll look at the overall score, and then we’ll show individual application results.

Even with the highest density platters on the market, the 1.5TB Barracuda isn’t the fastest drive in WorldBench. It does score two points higher than the terabyte 7200.11, but that still leaves it a couple of points out of the lead, behind the latest desktop drives from Western Digital.

Multimedia editing and encoding

MusicMatch Jukebox

Windows Media Encoder

Adobe Premiere

VideoWave Movie Creator

Of WorldBench’s multimedia editing and encoding tests, only Premiere spreads out the field. There, the latest ‘cuda finds itself close to the front of the pack, although it trails the 640GB Caviar SE16 and the SpinPoint F1.

Image processing

Adobe Photoshop

ACDSee PowerPack

ACDSee provides another opportunity for the Barracuda one-point-five to strut its stuff, and this time it’s much faster than the old 7200.11. However, the 1.5TB drive still can’t catch Western Digital’s latest.

Multitasking and office applications

Microsoft Office

Mozilla

Mozilla and Windows Media Encoder

WorldBench’s office and multitasking tests don’t show much preference for one drive over another.

Other applications

WinZip

Nero

WinZip and Nero are more demanding, though, and here the field really breaks open. The 7200.11 1.5TB finds itself in the middle of the pack in both tests, which makes it faster than Seagate’s previous Barracuda but slower than the fastest drives on the market.

Boot and load times
To test system boot and game level load times, we busted out our trusty stopwatch.

It takes the 1.5TB 7200.11 a full five seconds longer to boot than its 1TB predecessor. That makes the one-point-five one of the slowest drives in this test, well behind most of the terabyte pack.

The latest ‘cuda fares better in our game level load time tests. In both Doom 3 and Far Cry, it’s only a couple of seconds behind the VelociRaptor.

File Copy Test
File Copy Test is a pseudo-real-world benchmark that times how long it takes to create, read, and copy files in various test patterns. File copying is tested twice: once with the source and target on the same partition, and once with the target on a separate partition. Scores are presented in MB/s.

To make things easier to read, we’ve separated our FC-Test results into individual graphs for each test pattern. We’ll tackle file creation performance first.

Areal density doesn’t seem to be doing much for the 1.5TB Barracuda with our first batch of FC-Test workloads. In this first wave of file creation tests, the one-point-five is painfully slow, languishing at the back of the field behind even Hitachi’s original 7K1000. At least the 1.5TB 7200.11 is faster than the terabyte model, but that’s not saying much here.

Perhaps Seagate has simply biased the drive towards reads over writes, because when we switch to FC-Test’s read speed tests, the 1.5TB Barracuda puts on a show. It’s the fastest drive in the bunch with the install, ISO, and MP3 workloads, and second only to the VelociRaptor with the remaining two. In fact, with the ISO workload, which is made up of a small number of very large files, the one-point-five eclipses 120MB/s.

FC-Test – continued

Next, File Copy Test combines read and write tasks in some, er, copy tests.

Even lightning-quick read speeds can’t help the 1.5TB Barracuda when we switch to file copy tests. At best, the ‘cuda climbs to the middle of the pack, but it’s still well behind terabyte drives from Samsung and Western Digital. The ISO workload proves particularly problematic for the one-point-five, which actually turns in much slower copy speed than the original 7200.11.

Splitting copy tests across two partitions doesn’t make much of a difference for the 1.5TB Barracuda. Performance with the ISO workload is still dismal, and even with the other workloads, the ‘cuda is still slower than most of its rivals.

iPEAK multitasking
We’ve developed a series of disk-intensive multitasking tests to highlight the impact of seek times and command queuing on hard drive performance. You can get the low-down on these iPEAK-based tests here. The mean service time of each drive is reported in milliseconds, with lower values representing better performance.

The one-point-five appears to be particularly adept at handling our iPEAK multitasking workloads. Despite the slow copy speeds we observed in FC-Test, the ‘cuda comes out on top with our dual file copy workload. It also handles with aplomb workloads that include a compressed file creation as the primary task. However, the 1.5TB Barracuda isn’t quite as quick when we switch to a compressed file extraction as the primary task.

In our second wave of iPEAK tests, the 7200.11 1.5TB continues to perform well. The drive is very competitive with workloads that involve an Outlook export task, and it’s the fastest of the lot with workloads that include an Outlook PST import.

Even more impressive than the one-point-five’s individual iPEAK performances is the drive’s overall consistency. If you average the mean service times for each drive across all nine workloads, the ‘cuda comes out ahead of the entire field, including the VelociRaptor.

IOMeter
IOMeter presents a good test case for both seek times and command queuing.

You might think that a strong showing in our multitasking tests would set up the 1.5TB ‘cuda nicely for our multi-user IOMeter test patterns. You’d be dead wrong. The one-point-five is quite disappointing in these tests, falling behind not only the fastest 7,200-RPM drives in the bunch, but also the terabyte 7200.11. Only terabyte drives from Samsung and Hitachi are slower here.

At least the new ‘cuda doesn’t consume many CPU cycles in IOMeter, but then none of these drives do.

HD Tach
We tested HD Tach with the benchmark’s full variable zone size setting.

In HD Tach’s sequential throughput drag races, the one-point-five pulls up just short of the 10K-RPM VelociRaptor. That still puts the drive ahead of the rest of the 7,200-RPM field, though.

The Barracuda 7200.11’s 32MB of cache memory is the same for the terabyte model as it is for the one-point-five, which puts Seagate’s latest a little behind the VelociRaptor in HD Tach’s burst speed test.

Switching gears to an access time test, the 1.5TB Barracuda falls to the back of the pack, behind even Western Digital’s sub-7,200-RPM GreenPower drives. Note, also, that the one-point-five’s random access time is more than two milliseconds slower than that of the terabyte 7200.11.

The results of HD Tach’s CPU utilization test are well within the app’s +/- 2% margin of error for this test.

Noise levels
Noise levels were measured with an Extech 407727 Digital Sound Level meter 1″ from the side of the drives at idle and under an HD Tach seek load. Drives were run with the PCB facing up.

Those eyeing the one-point-five for home theater PC applications will be pleased to know that the drive is every bit as unobtrusive as the original 7200.11. This isn’t the quietest drive on the market, but it’s only a decibel louder than the best at idle.

Power consumption
For our power consumption tests, we measured the voltage drop across a 0.1-ohm resistor placed in line with the 5V and 12V lines connected to each drive. Through the magic of Ohm’s Law, we were able to calculate the power draw from each voltage rail and add them together for the total power draw of the drive.

The 1.5TB Barracuda lives up to its 8W idle power consumption rating, which isn’t bad, especially when you take into account the drive’s total capacity. If you consider these results in terms of gigabytes per watt, the one-point-five actually fares quite well.

Conclusions

The first terabyte hard drive debuted at $345, or a whopping 35 cents per gigabyte. Hard drive prices have plummeted since, with terabyte models currently selling for between $120 and $150. Surprisingly, though, the Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB doesn’t carry much of a price premium. The drive is widely available for less than $190, which works out to around 12 cents per gigabyte. That’s still a higher cost per gigabyte than your average terabyte model, but much less than we’d expect from the industry’s new high-water mark in capacity.

Of course, it takes more than a capacity milestone and reasonable price to make a good hard drive. Performance matters, too, and it’s in this realm that Seagate’s Barracuda 1.5TB has a few weaknesses. Sure, the drive’s sustained throughput looks excellent in HD Tach—that’s what we’d expect from the industry’s highest density platters—but our FC-Test results reveal that in the real world, the latest ‘cuda writes much, much slower than it reads. The 1.5TB Barracuda’s random access time is also the highest we’ve seen from a recent 7,200-RPM drive, and its performance under our multi-user IOMeter loads was quite poor.

Fortunately, the one-point-five fared reasonably well in WorldBench, and it was surprisingly snappy when faced with our disk-intensive multitasking workloads. If you’re only concerned with read throughput, it’s the quickest 7,200-RPM drive on the market. And it’s occasionally faster than even the 10K-RPM VelociRaptor. The drive is also quiet and energy-efficient enough for home theater PC applications, just as long as your media center doesn’t spend a lot of time seeking, which is a little louder than we’d like.

The fact that the 1.5TB Barracuda excels in some arenas and stumbles badly in others makes me question Seagate’s decision to pair its new 375GB platters with a year-old 7200.11 core. Even in its day, the original 7200.11 wasn’t the fastest drive on the market; in some instances, the one-point-five is actually slower. If you’re looking to cram as much capacity as possible into a 3.5″ drive bay, the ‘cuda is certainly the best option by a good 500GB. However, the drive’s poor real-world write speeds make it a tough sell for PC enthusiasts who can find much better all-around performance elsewhere.

Comments closed
    • macbuster
    • 11 years ago

    I’ve had 3 of these drives. All three have failed. The first one worked 2 days, then stopped mounting. The second one lasted 18 hours, crashed my computer. It would not reformat, and the computer geeks could not do anything with it. The 3rd one (a replacement of the 2nd) would not mount at all. Only a clicking sound the first time I plugged it in. I’ve heard they’ve had problems with these drives. Do not buy until they get the kinks worked out of it.

    PowerMac G5 Quad

    • docbill
    • 11 years ago

    What many people forget in cost analysis is the bay costs money too. If you are using an enclosure, they run about $25 for one drive and $50 for a dual drive enclosure. Each enclosure needs its own power adaptor, so it is not fun using a stack of drive enclosures.

    • docbill
    • 11 years ago

    While the analysis of performance is nice most of that performance is lost when the drive is placed in a USB enclosure or such. The question of concern I have is how much heat does the drive produce, and how reliable is the drive?

    • SS4
    • 11 years ago

    Well, after seeing this my new system will still be 1 velo 150 and 3 Caviar black ^^

    • chrylis
    • 11 years ago

    The author seems to overanalyze the drive’s performance characteristics. The fact that filesystem writes are very slow while raw writes and all reads are very fast suggests that the drive has a high throughput and high seek time, as confirmed by the other tests. The slow filesystem writes are almost certainly caused by seeks to the journal and back; enabling write caching (or using an external journal, in *ix) ought to speed up the tests dramatically.

    • Krogoth
    • 11 years ago

    Excellent article, Geoff.

    This HDD was clearly engineered to a multimedia and archiving solution. It is still up to task of doing general desktop tasks. 7200.11 1.5TB’s read performance is not as bad as it seems for its intended market.

    Besides, reading performance matters that most with server related loads (frequent reading/writing). Raptor and its high-RPM, low-capacity SAS rivals are favored for that.

    The lackluster performance is entirely from being new platter density. Remember how each first-generation HDD of a new platter density always has lower performance then older stuff? It is because HDD guys always take it easy and try to prove anything new before they start to tweak it for better performance.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    Why is FC-test version tested not downloadable or obtainable anywhere? It was released as beta by xbitlabs 4 years ago, they have a download for the older original FC-Test from 6 years ago but no update or download for the new one. I’d like to have this test suite to run myself. There’s also an FC-Test v2.0 build 1005 which xbit has used in some of their own reviews.

    Also, THG (yea, I know) got around 13.5ms random access not ~15ms like TR.

      • grantmeaname
      • 11 years ago

      1.5ms access time is significant across two different platforms?

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        A big deal in real-world use? Dunno. The fact that the test results vary greatly among websites and my personal experience tells me something else is going on, and yes on that HDTach/HDTune test a variation of 1.5ms is significant and not random variation. Also it’s about 10% and means a site like TR calls it out as ” behind even Western Digital’s sub-7,200-RPM GreenPower drives.”

          • grantmeaname
          • 11 years ago

          THG doesn’t even use FC-Test. You can’t compare two different programs and two different platforms and expect no difference.
          P.S. Don’t complain about TR using ICH7R for testing. THG usue ICH5.

            • DrDillyBar
            • 11 years ago

            No Complaints here, I still use ICH7R

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            I answered your reply about the seek time differences and you reply talking about FC-Test which does not test seek times? Care to try again?

            The seek time difference should be platform-agnostic among these test systems I agree, since it’s NOT there is a problem or some more investigating to do. Could be different firmwares or other such differences as well but it should raise eyebrows among anyone interested in proper comparisons and testing.

            It wasn’t just the SB chip itself I was commenting upon but also the driver revision, the one TR uses is ooold. If there were other references and all tests got the same seek times I wouldn’t have anything to wonder about but in this case THG and myself get the same value but TR does not so something is causing TR to get a different result. There’s no way to make a proper test conclusion with differing results like that and I’m not complaining, if the results made sense there wouldn’t be anything to wonder about but since they do differ for no apparent reason the results need to be questioned.

            • grantmeaname
            • 11 years ago

            my bad, it bled together with responding to the OP.

            Isn’t the platform difference enough of a reason for the difference? I do agree about the driver revision, although I suppose they would have to go back and redo all the tests and that would be just as much effort as updating the platform to ICH10R and that’s why they haven’t.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Whether it’s platform difference or driver revision doesn’t matter although it would be good to know which one it is. The reason it doesn’t matter is because TRs review data and the resulting conclusion does not match up with others for i[

            • Dissonance
            • 11 years ago

            Lest you think I couldn’t be bothered, I just ran the ‘cuda through HD Tach on an ICH10R platform with Intel’s latest drivers under Vista x86. Random access time? 15.2ms.

            And our drive isn’t the only one with a slow seek time:

            ยง[<http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2332792,00.asp<]ยง

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Let me try with HDTach and post back here. It shouldn’t be different than HDTune, never has on any drive in the past for me, but I’ll do it and see. Want to try HDTune yourself just for kicks since you’ve got it set up? And it’s not that I think you guys can’t be bothered, you probably always have some test or another to run for various reviews and I appreciate the articles you put out, there just hadn’t been a reply yet and I would hope such large differences would make you guys to want to find out the cause especially if there’s an original-news scoop waiting to happen. To just dismiss it and move on isn’t ‘exploring PC hardware’ ๐Ÿ˜‰

            btw I didn’t say it before but I’m using Vista x64. THG used WinServer 2003 (odd choice but whatever.) Shouldn’t make a difference with these low level measurements but you never know, and that’s what makes it so vexing.

            It may turn out to be something that deserves more digging if there is something different about the drives themselves that are out in the wild. You may remember there was something similar with the WD6400AAKS if not check the comments for that review, the one I and others got had noticably slower seek times (~15ms) than the pro reviews I’d seen, turns out that changing the AAM setting changed the seek times a lot. There’s no way to change AAM settings on Seagate drives afaik though, Hitachi’s feature tool doesn’t work on them.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Geoff, I will post once you’ve run HDTune, I’ve got it figured out now after running HDTach. Between my results, THG, and yours plus extremetech it’s clear what the source of the difference is I’m sure you can figure it out. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Now we would just need to know which is correct :-/

            Also is there any way for regular people to get a recent version of FC-Test? Don’t know why it’s only distributed to review sites ๐Ÿ™ and that seems pretty silly since xbitlabs released the first FC-Test.

            • Dissonance
            • 11 years ago

            13.4ms.

            Not sure why the folks at Xbit no longer distribute FC-Test. It’s a handy app, particularly when used in conjunction with synthetic drag race throughput tests.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            Yup. At least it shows I’m not crazy and that there’s not something incorrect about the reported results on either end or on any of the websites – everyone was just reporting the results of whichever program they used. Also shows that none of the drives tested were somehow different a la the WD6400AAKS.

            So HDTach and another program ‘Roadkill’s Disk Speed’ both got ~15ms for me. HDTune and h2benchw (used by THG) both got ~13.5ms. The tough question now is which is right?…although measured seek times could be said to be academic when real-world use is what matters. Maybe you can tease an answer out of Seagate without giving away which programs get which results. This episode just shows us that results that should be consistent still depend on the exact benchmark used which makes things tougher for us when comparing items or comparing reviews.

    • relmerator
    • 11 years ago

    I bought two of these a couple of weeks ago, and one arrived DOA–didn’t spin up at all. The other one is very fast and quiet, but disappears from the system after waking the machine from sleep. I never had any problem like this with the set of 4 Barracuda 7200.8 drives that it replaced, so that’s been extremely disappointing. When the replacement for the DOA drive arrived, it had the exact same problem with sleep. The Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6 board they’re on has both Intel and Gigabyte SATA controllers, but the results are the same on either. I’m going to move one of the drives into a server that never sleeps. Maybe the other one will fare better in my wife’s Dell, but if not, I’ll have to send it back.

    YMMV, of course.

      • adisor19
      • 11 years ago

      I have a feeling the sleeping issue is not the drive’s fault but rather your system’s BIOS. Are the SATA ports configured as AHCI ? That would be the first thing i’d check.

      Adi

        • relmerator
        • 11 years ago

        Hey, thanks for the AHCI suggestion–disabling AHCI solved the sleep problem. It’s not clear to me *why* that worked since the old drives were fine with AHCI enabled, but everything’s working fine now so I’m not losing any sleep over it.

        Thanks!

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Tried updating your /[

    • Prototyped
    • 11 years ago

    Disappointing, but not unexpected: higher areal densities are usually correlated with higher access times as well. WD managed a great feat by substantially trimming their access times in their Caviar Black (WD*AALS/FALS) range from what they had in their older Caviar Blue (WD*AAKS) range, but this is very much the exception rather than the rule. And access times still matter quite a bit today.

    • Pax-UX
    • 11 years ago

    Time to migrate my NAS’s RAID array! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Imperor
    • 11 years ago

    I’ve already got a WD Blue 640GB for a system drive and am now looking to replace the three old storage drives with something. Can’t really decide between this one and a WD Green 1TB 32MB…
    This one has got a bit better performance but I’m also looking at case temperature and energy efficiency… The new three-platter 32MB WD Green is supposed to be 10-20% faster and more energy efficient so that makes it a good rival… Even two of those might be cooler, more efficient and still deliver more diskspace… Price is about the same/GB… Hmmm, one of lifes hard choices! ๐Ÿ™‚

    • srg86
    • 11 years ago

    The write performance is very disapointing, I think for my uses, this drive is pretty useless other than a backup or archiving drive, kinda like the more mainstream SSDs with their bias for read performance. Western Digital mechanical drives are still my first choice for storage.

    • DrDillyBar
    • 11 years ago

    I was just looking today at replacing 5 HDD’s with one of these. Good timing. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • just brew it!
    • 11 years ago

    Great review!

    Looks like the extra mass of the heads for the 4th platter are killing their seek times. In spite of that, it still looks like a decent drive, especially if you’re going for maximum capacity above all else.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    First, thanks for the review. I’d been wondering when TR or any pro site for that matter was going to get down n dirty with one of these. Reason being that I was strongly looking toward buying some which at this time I’ve already done, the high capacity sold me and I spammed everywhere I could to see if the seek noise was reasonable. From these tests the drive is a schizophrenic Jekyll and Hyde beast, great at some things and average to poor at others. Funny thing is some of the tests on the first few pages are so close in absolute and percentage terms that it makes drawing strong conclusions seem like reaching just for something to say.

    One thing about the test that did not match my use though was the seek time. You guys used HDTach here, I used HDTune but in my experience the two have always been close. I got ~13.5ms average, using an ICH9R with AHCI drivers installed and enabled in BIOS. The latest driver vesion (preinstall setup) is 8.5.0.1032 dated 8/18/2008. I know I asked about updating the storage platform and was told ICH7R is good enough and it will probably be updated with the next SATA revision. Fair enough – I’m not going to argue that point too much – but those drivers you’re using are horribly outdated, they’re from what, 2006 or earlier? I wonder if this makes part of the difference I saw from your tests.
    Intel page link: ยง[<http://downloadcenter.intel.com/filter_results.aspx?strTypes=all&ProductID=2101&OSFullName=Windows+Vista*+64&lang=eng&strOSs=150&submit=Go%21<]ยง ----- Non article specific....something that's been bugging me ever since the site update. This article was posted yesterday and I've visited numberous times but only saw it because I carefully looked at the full column on the left. If I hadn't I still would not have seen it. There needs to be prioritization for newer articles to show as the top one, or maybe make the three most recent be 'featured' ones with a larger picture and heading. I know this isn't the first time I've kind of missed an article but it's time to put the feedback out there.

      • Voldenuit
      • 11 years ago

      Yeah, it’s annoying not being able to easily differentiate feature articles from news posts unlike the (good) old days. :p

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        Actually now that I look it was only posted 3.5 hours ago heh ๐Ÿ˜‰ So maybe not quite as bad as I made it out to be but I expect new articles to stick out more clearly.

          • Spurenleser
          • 11 years ago

          Why not use RSS?

      • Bigbloke
      • 11 years ago

      I cannot read wide posts! This is very annoying. I am presuming it is a firefox 2.0.0.17 thing, but I cannot make this response readable with either page width option or resizing the page. I can’t upgrade firefox because this is a work machine ๐Ÿ™
      Does anyone else suffer this? Is it the huge web link that causes this?

        • IntelMole
        • 11 years ago

        Portable firefox.

        • Bigbloke
        • 11 years ago

        [Talking to myself (always a bad sign)]. Hmm it displays fine in Internet Exploder 7, so it really is a stupid firefox 2.0.0.17 issue. Must persuade IT to upgrade my s/w

    • Voldenuit
    • 11 years ago

    You’re forgetting the main purpose of the 1.5TB drive. In a HTPC or network drive mainly serving up video files (especially HD video), its high read speeds and multi user read performance is much appreciated.

    In fact, that’s exactly what I have my seagate 1.5 TB drive doing in my PC, while my WD RE2 drive plays system drive.

      • Xylker
      • 11 years ago

      And I might say that you are forgetting that you need to get the content ONTO the drive… Sure, eventually it is nice to get the performance, but I would prefer a more balanced drive. Which is why I have the WD 640.

        • Nitrodist
        • 11 years ago

        Yes, it would take you… TWICE AS LONG… to get the content on there, and then after that it wouldn’t be an issue! Unbelievable!

          • Voldenuit
          • 11 years ago

          And how would you get the content on there?

          Rip a DVD?
          Download from the Internet?
          Transfer from local network?

          I doubt write speed would be the bottleneck in any of those cases.

        • sacremon
        • 11 years ago

        If you look at the HD Tach Write speed, you will see that it is the second fastest drive, behind the Velociraptor. Writing a large video file to disk should be quite fast.

        What this drive does not do well is handle small files, particularly with random access.

    • Forge
    • 11 years ago

    I’d prefer a 2 platter 750. Two or four of those on a good hardware RAID controller….

    I just don’t like having more than a few hundred GB of non-redundant storage.

    And how long till 7200.12 anyways?? I want a 150-300GB Seagate 10K.1 SATA too.

      • Saribro
      • 11 years ago

      I was thinking the same, 2 platter 750GiB would be ideal, and a logical step from the 2 platter 640GiB drives currently around.

      • mesyn191
      • 11 years ago

      I think a higher density higher speed SSD would be worth hoping for. These mech. drives aren’t bad at all of course, but in RAID with a good hardware controller you can get near linear scaling in many applications.

    • shank15217
    • 11 years ago

    This is the perfect media storage drive. It has fast reads and performs well with multiple access so should do well over network access. Three of these with a good raid 5 controller will give a whopping 3 TB of storage.

      • Jigar
      • 11 years ago

      3 of them will make it 4.5 TB ๐Ÿ™‚

        • Bigbloke
        • 11 years ago

        Er not in raid 5 which the OP stated. However 4 would make 4.5TB which is a better ratio.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This