Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Seagate and Western Digital 1TB Drives: Improved and Green
Seagate and Western Digital 1TB Drives: Improved and Green
Date: November 26th, 2007
Topic: Storage
Manufacturer: Various
Author: Dave Robinet
Buy the Seagate ST31000333AS Barracuda
Blank
 Memory4Less $175.75
 TigerDirect $89.99
 CompUSA $89.99
 
 

Introduction

When one manufacturer has a breakthrough in hard drive capacity, the other manufacturers rush to make sure their product line contains at least one entry at the new capacity level. However, it can sometimes take a while for actual product to arrive after these announcements, so it can be difficult to buy the particular drive that a consumer wants. Fortunately, the distribution channels have begun to fill with 1TB drives over the last several months, and consumers are now able to buy these massive hard drives with relative ease. In our head-to-head comparison today, we pit Seagate's 1TB Barracuda 7200.11 ES.2 against Western Digital's 1TB Caviar GP, along with updated results from the Hitachi 1TB drive that kicked off the "Era of Tera".

The Combatants

After Hitachi, Seagate was the first of our competitors out of the gate with its 1TB drive announcements, listing several different incarnations of its largest-capacity drive. Seagate positions their Barracuda 7200.11 as a desktop-class drive.



Seagate leverages its industry-leading five-year warranty and PMR recording technology in their mainstream 7200.11 desktop class drive. Anyone familiar with Seagate's drive naming conventions will recognize that this drive is the eleventh generation of their 7200RPM mainstream drives, marking over 15 years that they have been producing drives at that spindle speed. We were surprised once again at the launch of this new class of drive, as Seagate announced the 7200.10 series just over a year ago. The major enhancement in the 7200.11 product series over the 7200.10 is a simple increase in areal density. The platter size increases from 188GB on the 7200.10 series to 250GB on the 7200.11 product. This increase in density is the primary reason for the claim of this drive being "second generation PMR recording technology". The other major change is an increase from 16MB cache to 32MB cache on the 1TB drive. We will look to find out what performance benefits, if any, come with this "second generation" technology.



Western Digital followed Seagate's lead in introducing their 1TB Caviar GP in July of 2007, though their approach to the technology differs considerably. Where the Seagate drive focuses on reliability and trading on their established name, the Western Digital Caviar GP seeks to set itself apart with its low power consumption. This "green" approach - dubbed "environmentally responsible storage" in their product literature - attempts to portray the GP line as environmentally friendly due to a low power consumption figure. While we can all appreciate lower power requirements in our computing components, it remains an open question if users are willing to accept any performance trade-offs to get there. Our main question today is if Western Digital's focus on being "green" comes at the cost of performance, and how does the new Seagate 7200.11 compare to the 7200.10 series. Let us look at the specifications to see the numbers behind the headlines.

The Tale of the Tape   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

32 Comments - Last by linrenzhen, 54 days ago
Username:
Password:
This IntelliPower drive is very certainly 5400 upm by jojo4u, 806 days ago
See page 2 and page 3 http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0%2C2

Your low-level results also back this up.

Reply
RE: This IntelliPower drive is very certainly 5400 upm by DigitalFreak, 806 days ago
There was a discussion on their forums about how it would be prohibitively expensive to produce a drive that could vary it's spindle speed due to the extra stress on the mechanism.

Reply
RE: This IntelliPower drive is very certainly 5400 upm by jojo4u, 806 days ago
IBM is varying the spindle speed (Low RPM Standby mode). But only after quite an amount of idle. http://www.silentpcreview.com/article304-page2.html

Reply
RE: This IntelliPower drive is very certainly 5400 upm by Interlink, 804 days ago
Anybody with a mic e.g. in his headset and a PC with microphon input is able to measure the fixed spindle speed of a WD10EACS: [url=http://forums.storagereview.net/index.p...c=26021&view=findpost&p=246459]5400 rpm[/url].

Reply
No thanks, WD by DigitalFreak, 806 days ago
Me thinks that this whole "green" thing from WD is because they were having issues producing a performance drive. Maybe the lower power consumption would make sense in a laptop drive, but I'd much rather have performance on the desktop.

Seagate's ATA drives have always been so-so performers, so I'm not surprised with the outcome. However, they 5 year warranty more than makes up for it in a home server environment.

Reply
RE: No thanks, WD by jojo4u, 806 days ago
Other drives are performing well. It's nice to have the choice. And there are uses for low-power high-capacity drives.

Reply
Why by drebo, 806 days ago
Why is it that almost every single article Anandtech puts out has a conclusion that contradicts their own test results?

Seriously. If the two drives are so different and so suited for different purposes, why are you even comparing them? If it's just to say that the WD drive excells at being green and the Seagate drive sucks at performance, why even bother with an article?

You cannot judge the drives solely on the merits of the competition while ignoring what the drive is good at.

This right here: "the redeeming feature of the Seagate drive is only that it turns in better results than the Western Digital drive". That's a no-brainer, and anyone could have guessed that by looking at the manufacturer specs. More to the point: wasn't that the goal of the article--to find out which of the two performed better? So, why, in your conclusion, do you completely ignore the fact that the Seagate drive is clearly the better performer?

You judge the Seagate drive for not being quiet, for running hot, for having bad performance, yet you completely ignore the fact that in your little "head-to-head" comparison, it is the victor in terms of performance. By that same token, you praise the Western Digital drive for being quient, for running cool, and you completely ignore the fact that it performed worse than any other drive tested.

The bias on this site is palpable. So much for honest reviews.

Reply
RE: Why by yuchai, 805 days ago
Do you actually make a HD purchase decision solely based on performance?

I actually liked the conclusion. Sure, the WD is slower in almost everything. But if you look at the real life benchmarks it's only about 5% in all apps except WinRAR. Is this difference high enough to offset the savings in price and power consumption? I think this is the type of question that the consumer should be asking, and the conclusion does a good job at doing just that.

Anyway, if you do not like the conclusion, you can easily look at the facts and benchmarks only and make your own call. Ultimately, AT can only give information and recommendations. The decision maker is still you.



Reply
RE: Why by JarredWalton, 805 days ago
This isn't just a comparison of Seagate to Western Digital, obviously. That's why there are several other hard drives listed in the benchmarks. The conclusion for the Seagate fits with the benchmarks: it is slower than (or at best equal to) the Hitachi 1TB drive in every single test. The only thing it has going for it is a five-year warranty, which doesn't count for much in my book. Sure, you can get a replacement drive for an extra two years, but until manufacturers start providing data recovery as part of the warranty I just don't think it's a big deal. I have dozens of hard drives from all the major manufacturers; granted, I'm not stressing every single drive 24/7, but drive failures are uncommon - whether in the first three years or at 4-5 years.

WD has lower power (meh - 4W is *nothing* when it comes to power!), but it also has a much lower price. Seagate has a price that is $5 cheaper than Hitachi (at Newegg - though I admit I'm not sure what the difference is between the four Hitachi 1TB drives that show up). The "enterprise" version is also $25 more than most expensive Hitachi - $55 more than the cheapest 1TB Hitachi. Given the better performance (Seagate has low write performance) and essentially equal price, we'd recommend the Hitachi over the Seagate.

Reply
RE: Why by Dave Robinet, 805 days ago
Well put, Jarred.

The Hitachi was reviewed some time ago, now, and (as you mention) its results are included in the charts. It gets mention in the conclusion as being the preferred option over the Seagate, as well.

The Green drive does have a place as a quiet drive (the quietest of the 1TB drives tested), and it comes at a low price point. That's considerable - particularly for HTPC users, who may not appreciate the Hitachi's noise.

For performance-oriented applications, though, it's a tough sell.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 4

DOWNLOAD vWire Today - FREE TRIAL
Take Control of Your Virtual Infrastructure. Manage VI Data & Prevent Problems.
Instantly Recover Active Directory
Instantly recover Active Directory without rebooting, panic or stress. Try FREE!
Report Unlicensed Business Software Use
Earn Up to $1 Million by Reporting Unlicensed Software Use. Fill Out Our Form!
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Supermicro Barebone Servers
We Carry Everything Supermicro. Low Price, Top Service, FREE Shipping, and more.




Latest news by
DailyTech

 February 9, 2010

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 February 8, 2010

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


more Storage Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2010 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information