Seagate 7200 ES2 SATAII-300 32mb or WD Raptor 10,000RPM 16mb

[Pepi93]

I wanted to buy the Raptor 10k 150GB hard drive but then I look at the Seagate drives and I see they have 32mb buffer drives...so which would be faster? or better for the money?....here are the specs.

1) 150GB Western Digital® Raptor™ SATA-150 10,000RPM 16Mb $185 CND

2) 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 ES2 SATAII-300 7200RPM 32Mb $160 CND

3) 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 SATAII-300 7200RPM 32Mb $135 CND

 

[CGR]

Raptor is faster.

Seagate gives you more bang for the buck.

 

[dominick32]

Raptor Hands Down... Drive Latency is what you are after here, and the raptor is going to be an overall faster drive.

 

[Shiggity]

Raptor

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136011

Try to get the AHFD if you can (the cool one with the clear cover). After reading a bit of reviews it seems to play nicer when its your only HDD compared to the ADFD model which supposedly performs better in a RAID environment. That could be all heresay, no real proof to back it up, just read it from some reviews.

I just installed the ADFD model and its running fine.

 

[Pepi93]

I just looked at the specs....the seagate reads at 300mbps, while the raptor at 150mbps....the seagate reads at <1ms, while the raptor is 4.5ms.....the regular 32mb seagate...or choice 3 in my list, reads at <8.5ms.....so what are you guys talking about with regards to the raptor being faster?

 

[dominick32]

I just looked at the specs....the seagate reads at 300mbps, while the raptor at 150mbps....the seagate reads at <1ms, while the raptor is 4.5ms.....the regular 32mb seagate...or choice 3 in my list, reads at <8.5ms.....so what are you guys talking about with regards to the raptor being faster?

Welcome to OCForums first off!!!

Here are the official specs, because you seem to be slightly confused. When you keep mentioneing read speed of 300 MB/s. That is a physical impossibility on a single 7200 rpm SATA drive. The 300 MB/s you are referring to is the maximum theoretical bandwidth of the SATA channel that the drive is feeding. It has nothing to do with speed of the drive. The Raptor by western digital has just never upgraded to the sata2 standard of 300 max MB/s. They are still stuck at 150 MB/s max bandwidth. But, both of these drives will never come even close to touching max bandwidth on either SATAI or SATAII interface.

Raptor 150
10,000 RPM Spindle Speed
Random Access Time = 7.8 ms
Sustained Read = 78.6 MB/s
PCMark05 XP Startup = 10.00 MB/s

Seagate Barracuda (32mb Cache, 500GB, SATAII)
7200 RPM Spindle Speed
Random Access Time = 13.0 ms
Sustained Read = 80 MB/s
PCMark05 XP Startup = 8.0 MB/s

The numbers that you want to be looking at here are random access time because latency is what is actually going to be providing you with any realized gains in speed. And as you can see, the Raptor is almost 75% faster during random file reads.

Forgetting about solid state drives, the raptor will be hands down the fastest "real world" SATA drive on the market today.

the seagate reads at <1ms

Also, just a little FYI. There is not 1 SATA drive on the market that can achieve a true access time of under 1ms. The only SATA drives capable of this are based on Solid State Technology and cost a little over $400 each in case you are interested. But no, the seagate does not have a sub 1ms access time, its just not possible.

Dom

 

[nightelph]

Raptor FTW!

 

[noegruts]

The numbers that you want to be looking at here are random access time because latency is what is actually going to be providing you with any realized gains in speed.

This is only true if your workload requires lots of random access. If your workload is primarily lots of sequential reading, then you want a drive that provides a high sustained transfer rate.

Don't get me wrong, a low access time is a good thing, I just see a lot of people here always seem to say that drive "X" is the best because it has the lowest access time or drive "Y" is the best because it has the fastest STR. But in reality, what is "best" for a particular user cannot be determined until that user describes his expected access patterns - in other words, how he expects to use the drive.

Now, if there was a drive that had simultaneously the lowest access time, the highest STR and the lowest cost, that would be the best choice for everybody. But until then, pick a drive that is good at what you need. And for some people, a higher STR is more important than a lower access time.

 

[noegruts]

Seagate Barracuda (32mb Cache, 500GB, SATAII)
7200 RPM Spindle Speed
Random Access Time = 13.0 ms
Sustained Read = 80 MB/s
PCMark05 XP Startup = 8.0 MB/s

By the way, which drive is this you're talking about? The specs for the 500GB/32MB Barracuda 7200.11 drive, model ST3500320AS, seem to be:

Random Access Time = 8.5 ms
Sustained Read = 105 MB/s

Reference:
http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/desktop/Barracuda 7200.11/100452348b.pdf

 

[dominick32]

Random Access Time = 8.5 ms
Sustained Read = 105 MB/s

Reference:
http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/s...100452348b.pdf

Although the manufacturer link you provided states an average seek time of 8.5 ms, the true random access time happens to be right around 12.7 ms on the drive. These tests were taken from Extremetech.com storage reviews who happen to be part of the ziffdavis media network, good guys:

Also, you are pointing out a maximum sustained transfer rate of 105 MB/s. There are no SATA drives on the market that can achieve this type of average sustained performance. That is an unrealistic claim and statement because the drive actually puts out 85 MB/s AVERAGE SUSTAINED READ on the 1TB and closer to 90 MB/s on the 500GB which is still extremely stout but obviously not 105 MB/s sustained transfer.

Please note: the 1TB is rated the same performance spec as the 500GB.

This is only true if your workload requires lots of random access. If your workload is primarily lots of sequential reading, then you want a drive that provides a high sustained transfer rate.

Don't get me wrong, a low access time is a good thing, I just see a lot of people here always seem to say that drive "X" is the best because it has the lowest access time or drive "Y" is the best because it has the fastest STR. But in reality, what is "best" for a particular user cannot be determined until that user describes his expected access patterns - in other words, how he expects to use the drive.

Now, if there was a drive that had simultaneously the lowest access time, the highest STR and the lowest cost, that would be the best choice for everybody. But until then, pick a drive that is good at what you need. And for some people, a higher STR is more important than a lower access time.

Throughout tons of my own rigorous testing over the last couple of years the most benefit ever realized for a gamer/overclocker is always due to reduced access time. Sustained Reads are good in certain situations. However, access time is beneficial in all situations. It is what makes a drive seem more instantaneous, so to speak. Sustained read is great in transferring files, and working with larger files for specific applications but I honestly dont know if this original poster works with photoshop, video editing, etc.?? Maybe we should ask him before making any assumptions.

But drive performance for a gamer/overclocker and most of the users on this site is going to be a realized benefit from access time, not sustained transfer rates. And as you can see, probably due to rotational speed of the drives 10K vs. 7200, the raptor has the edge in true random reads being an 8ms vs. 12.7 ms of the 7200.11 drive.

 

[noegruts]

Also, you are pointing out a maximum sustained transfer rate of 105 MB/s. There are no SATA drives on the market that can achieve this type of average sustained performance. That is an unrealistic claim and statement because the drive actually puts out 85 MB/s AVERAGE SUSTAINED READ on the 1TB and closer to 90 MB/s on the 500GB which is still extremely stout but obviously not 105 MB/s sustained transfer.

Indeed, I was referring to the maximum STR, not the average STR across the entire drive capacity. Were you quoting the same figure for the Raptor drive?

Sustained read is great in transferring files, and working with larger files for specific applications but I honestly dont know if this original poster works with photoshop, video editing, etc.?? Maybe we should ask him before making any assumptions.

That was exactly my point.

But drive performance for a gamer/overclocker and most of the users on this site is going to be a realized benefit from access time, not sustained transfer rates. And as you can see, probably due to rotational speed of the drives 10K vs. 7200, the raptor has the edge in true random reads being an 8ms vs. 12.7 ms of the 7200.11 drive.

I'm not sure how you define "most users on this site". My point is that the best drive for a particular application depends upon what that application is.

Please don't think I am trying to poke you into an argument, I'm just trying to point out that one size very rarely fits all.

 

[Pepi93]

The Seagate 7200 ES2 SATAII-300 32mb has the following specs on their site.


Maximum Sustained (MB/s) 105
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Seek Time - Average Read/Write (msec) 8.5/9.5

but I can't find any other info on this drive...only the 7200.11 regular 32mb drive...

so now I'm debating between the raptor $185, or the ES2 $160

thoughts?

 

[noegruts]

The Seagate 7200 ES2 SATAII-300 32mb has the following specs on their site.


Maximum Sustained (MB/s) 105
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Seek Time - Average Read/Write (msec) 8.5/9.5

but I can't find any other info on this drive...only the 7200.11 regular 32mb drive...

so now I'm debating between the raptor $185, or the ES2 $160

thoughts?

What do you want to use the drive for? Will it have an OS on it? If not, do you deal with large files? Or lots of small ones?

 

[Pepi93]

What do you want to use the drive for? Will it have an OS on it? If not, do you deal with large files? Or lots of small ones?

this will be the OS drive, used for gaming, no storage...running programs...doing everything but storing music, video etc...that stuff I can run off the storage drive no probs...so basically...running the OS....programs...multitasking....gaming is a major reason for this drive.

 

[dominick32]

What do you want to use the drive for? Will it have an OS on it? If not, do you deal with large files? Or lots of small ones?

hehe.
I think we have both come to an agreement.

TO THE OP:What are you buying this drive for? An OS and games/apps setup, a strict data drive? or are you video/photo editing and working with larger files?

To both noegruts and the OP, although the raptor will be your quickest hard drive and will boot your operating system/games/apps much faster I am very interested in this new 32MB seagate drive you posted about. It seems to have incredible STR's... Even with average sustained read in the 90's using a full sincle partition. If you slice this drive down to a 200 GB or less boot partition using the Matrix we are talking about 105 MB/s average sustained read for a mechanical SATA drive. That is crazy fast and I need to get one of these in my test rig to put up an article on nextlevelhardware.com. I thank you both for raising my eyebrows a bit.

If you are working with photo/video editing and using the drive for large files I would recommend the drive with more space and higher STR's = Seagate

If you are using the drive for your operating system and to play games, overclock, and working with large files is non existent = Raptor

You will notice a more fluid like and snappy OS environment with the raptor, and working with larger files will be much faster and enjoyable with the Seagate.

Dom

PS- Thanks again for letting me know about the Seagate 32MBCache.. When was this drive released? I am very impressed.

 

[Oklahoma Wolf]

3) 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 SATAII-300 7200RPM 32Mb $135 CND

Just got one of these from NCIX, and have swapped out my Maxtor Diamondmax 10 200GB with 16MB cache for it. It's definitely faster, but I wouldn't say it's a whole lot faster. Of course, I just got it a couple hours ago and am still re-partitioning my other drives, so I probably haven't experienced the utmost of its performance yet

One caveat - my drive did have the cache issue outlined here: http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/support/downloads/other_downloads/cuda-fw-disty

Updating the firmware was the very first thing I did, even before partitioning. Went without issues.