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.
44 Comments
View All Comments
segagenesis - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
... for when we see 1TB in a single drive. Despite the cost the sheer amount of storage available in a single drive is amazing.One thing I have to question though, maybe I missed it in the article, how much space do you "lose" when you format a 750GB drive? Yes I am aware of the 1000 vs. 1024 bits per byte differences... but how bad is it getting now?
Gary Key - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
The capacity differences from the drive manufacturers and what the operating system reports are on page 5. In this case, Seagate claims 750GB, current operating systems will report and provide 698.6GB of storage capacity. :)
mino - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
Actually no, there is no "capacity difference".750GB as SI-System Giga-Bytes means 750*10^9 B = 750.000.000.000 bytes = 0.75TB
this will an OS call 750 000 000 000 bytes(B) = 732.421.875 kB = 715.255 MB = 698 GB = 0.682 TB
The amount of data is the same, those are just different units.
Gary Key - Thursday, May 18, 2006 - link
We know this, that is why we do not refer to the drives "formated capacity" as if the drive lost data capacity because you formatted it. He had already mentioned he knew the calculation difference so I was simply answering his question on how the OS would report the data "capacity" (probably the wrong word to use) compared to Seagate in this case. If the drive industry adhered to the standard everyone else is utilizing then life in this case would be simple. ;-)