Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750GB: Size Does Matter
by Gary Key on May 18, 2006 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Test Setup - Hardware
We have changed our test beds to reflect changes in the current marketplace. While we wanted to change to the AMD AM2 platform, the continual product delays forced us into staying with a socket 939 based system. Based upon the continuing proliferation of dual core processors along with future roadmaps from AMD and Intel signifying the end of the single core processor on the desktop in the near future, we have upgraded from our AMD Athlon64 3500+ to an AMD Opteron 170. This change will also allow us to expand our real world multitasking benchmarks in the near future. We will review our test bed requirements once we have an opportunity to thoroughly test the AM2 and Intel Core 2 Duo platforms.We debated on the memory size for our IPEAK trace file creations and decided to move to 2GB of system memory. A system with a 1GB memory configuration is the predominant standard at this time in the enthusiast community, but 2GB memory setups are fast becoming the future standard. Although a 1GB memory installation allows us to capture and report a higher amount of disk activity in certain applications; we decided to make the switch at this time as the performance difference is minimal when compared to the 1GB trace files.
| Standard Test Bed Playback of iPEAK Trace Files and Test Application Results |
|
| Processor: | AMD Opteron 170 utilized for all tests. |
| RAM: | 2 x 1GB Corsair 3500LL PRO Settings: DDR400 at (2.5-3-3-7*c* 1T) |
| OS Hard Drive: | 1 x Maxtor MaXLine III 7L300S0 300GB 7200 RPM SATA (16MB Buffer) |
| System Platform Drivers: | NVIDIA Platform Driver - 6.85 |
| Video Card: | 1 x Asus 7600GS (PCI Express) for all tests. |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA nForce 84.21 WHQL |
| Optical Drive: | BenQ DW1640 |
| Cooling: | Zalman CNPS9500 |
| Power Supply: | OCZ GamexStream 700W |
| Case: | Gigabyte 3D Aurora |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Motherboards: | MSI K8N Diamond Plus |
| Standard Test Bed Creation of iPEAK Trace Files |
|
| Processor: | AMD Opteron 170 utilized for all tests. |
| RAM: | 2 x 1GB Corsair 3500LL PRO Settings: DDR400 at (2.5-3-3-7*c* 1T) |
| OS Hard Drive: | 1 x Maxtor MaXLine III 7L300S0 300GB 7200 RPM SATA (16MB Buffer) |
| System Platform Drivers: | ATI Platform Driver - 1.1.0.0 |
| Video Card: | 1 x Asus 7600GS (PCI Express) for all tests. |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA nForce 84.21 WHQL |
| Optical Drive: | BenQ DW1640 |
| Cooling: | Zalman CNPS9500 |
| Power Supply: | OCZ GamexStream 700W |
| Case: | Gigabyte 3D Aurora |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
| Motherboards: | ECS KA1 MVP Extreme |
We chose the ECS KA1-MVP as the platform for creating our IPEAK trace files. This affords us an updated system with the capability of correctly creating and storing our trace files on a SATA based drive. It also allows us to utilize a modern video card for the game play trace results which are captured with the graphic settings at a typical 1280x1024 resolution.
You may have noticed we did not use the MSI K8N Diamond Plus for both purposes, though the balance of the component choices are essentially the same. We experienced inconsistencies with our trace files on this platform, our ULi M1575 or M1697 boards, and those of any Intel based systems featuring the ICH6 or ICH7 chipsets. The ATI SB450 proved to be the only currently available chipset that produced repeatable results on all platforms when utilizing the IPEAK WinTrace32 program. Note that this is a common issue with IPEAK: once you create trace files that perform consistently, they will work fine on any platform, but creating the trace files requires the use of specific platforms/drives with prior trace files being developed on an Intel board with the ICH5 Southbridge.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
Seagates claims are correct from an objecitve measurement, subjectively the drive was louder in our testing at full load with either read or write seeks. I added the subjective statement in this paragraph to convey what I was explaining further in the article. Thanks!! :)Questar - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
Gary, I hate to nick-pick, but even the revised version doesn't read well. You start off with Seagate's claim that the .10 is quieter than the .9, you say you found something different, and then talk about the .10 compared to the other drives.You need to say the drive is subjectivly louder than the .9 (if it was).
Gary Key - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
Sorry about that, I had the WD 500GB statement in the sentence and not the Seagate 500GB, that was confusing, read it so many times that I missed it. It should read better now. :)
Zoomer - Friday, May 26, 2006 - link
Why don't you invite more people down to down some blind comparative tests?That would sort out some subjectivity. :)
ROcHE - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
Will you guys review more standard sizes? Like 320GB or so.I have seen the 750GB model reviewed only so far.
Gary Key - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
We will in June, Seagate will be shipping press samples out later this month. I want to see the 200GB~320GB drive range just as much as everyone else. ;-)
ROcHE - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
It's already up for sale. ???Buy one and be the first to review :)
Gary Key - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
I already bought the the additional 750GB, WD1500, and WD5000YS for RAID results. I do not know how much more the wife will let me spend this month. ;-) Anyway, Seagate is getting ready to ship two of the 320s out to us. Hopefully, I can get the review in before Computex. I am pretty much convinced this is the drive that will define the sweet spot in the market for performance, capacity, and price.
Zoomer - Friday, May 26, 2006 - link
From the spec sheet, the 400GB one seems promising to be a contender. It has a higher head to platter ratio. :)ROcHE - Friday, May 19, 2006 - link
Can't wait to see the results.