Seagate announces the Barracuda LP HD Series
by Gary Key on April 22, 2009 5:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Gary's First Looks
In celebration of Earth Day we have an announcement from Seagate about their new Barracuda LP lineup. The marketing checklist is very similar to the Western Digital Caviar Green series: reduced spindle speeds, low noise, even lower power consumption, and performance that is more than acceptable for the entry level, home office, SOHO NAS, or HTPC audiences.
The Barracuda LP is launching today (product availability later this week) in 1TB, 1.5TB, and 2TB capacities. The drives feature a 500GB per-platter design, 32MB buffer, and a 5,900RPM spindle speed. WD has never officially stated the Caviar Green's actual spindle speeds, but we think they are somewhere between 5,400RPM to 5,700RPM based on performance metrics. According to Seagate's press presentation earlier this week, the LP drives are fast enough to outperform their Caviar Green counterparts while offering improved power and noise levels.
Based on Seagate's internal testing (review samples arrive shortly) the drives are rated at 19dB(A) at idle and around 20dB(A) under load. This compares to the WD Caviar Green 2TB at 19db(A) idle and near 21db(A) under load. Power consumption is very close also, Seagate reports 3W at idle and 5.6W during operation, compared to 3W at idle and 5.72W under load for the WD drive.
Since this drive lineup will end up in external storage devices, Seagate has designed it with a rugged operating environment in mind. The drive's shock tolerance is rated to 70Gs under operation and 300Gs in power off mode.
Seagate's new Barracuda LP series looks to set a new bar in the low-power / low-noise high capacity market but you will pay for it at the upper end. Seagate quoted the suggested retail prices of $118 for the Barracuda LP 1TB, $156 for 1.5TB, and $358 for the 2TB version. Current street prices for the 1TB Caviar Green range around $100, $160 for the 1.5TB drive, and 2TB of eco-friendly storage will cost you $299.99.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
garydale - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
I've owned many drives from many companies over the years and never found much difference. Yes, the firmware problem was troubling, but I have 4 500G Seagates that are all running just fine.I've got a WD in another machine that looks like it could go soon - some SMART errors regarding spin-up and seek times. However another WD in the same machine is OK.
As for quality and service, Seagate offers the same 3-year replacement warranty as the other manufacturers. However your data is your concern, not Seagate's. If you don't have good backups, expect to lose data.
eli2k - Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - link
Happened to me, too; but if you check of MSFN forums, they have posted a solution to the problem you can undertake to fix the 'bricking' that costs around $20-50, better than sending it to Seagate, if you want your data back.eli2k - Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - link
Happened to me, too; but if you check of MSFN forums, they have posted a solution to the problem you can undertake to fix the 'bricking' that costs around $20-50, better than sending it to Seagate, if you want your data back.majortom1981 - Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - link
EVERY single Seagate drive i have ever owned died within a year.Somebody please tell me why i should buy another hdd drive from this company?
Anonymous Freak - Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - link
And how many Seagate drives have you owned?I work at a small OEM that ships thousands of hard drives per year. Mostly Hitachi on the desktop, with some Seagate; and mostly Seagate in the server space, with some Hitachi.
We see a much higher *RATE* of failure (not just raw numbers,) on the Hitachi on the desktop; and even a higher raw failure *NUMBERS* in the server space; even though we ship orders of magnitude more Seagates than Hitachis in that space.
Samus - Saturday, April 25, 2009 - link
Thats funny, because storage reviews' drive reliability survey shows seagates as the most reliable drives manufactured between 2000-2007Sounds like user error to me ;)
Bremen7000 - Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - link
Because your anecdotes don't constitute anything more than statistical noise?garydale - Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - link
Let's remember that one size rarely fits all. These drives are intended to reduce power usage, including facility cooling, not run your games at warp 10. Their performance is adequate for media server applications where their low noise is also a plus.I run a home server (Debian Gnu/Linux) with a software RAID array. I've never needed hot-swap capability so I use a desktop case. When you put multiple drives in, you have to watch the temperature around the drives. And because the server is always running, power consumption is an important consideration. Moreover, network performance is the limiting factor, not read speed, in getting data from a RAID array.
So don't put them in your game machine, but don't disparage something that fills an important niche in the market.
Davelo - Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - link
I assume these drives are intended for Macs as only that segment puts green ahead of performance.Havor - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Are you kidding?If they would make 2~3000 rpm drives i would still be intrested to buy them, if that would mean that they would use even less power and produce less heat.
Lower rpm would properly also mean the drives have a longer live
I have a 12TB A/V server at home, and these type of drives helps lowering my electric bill, for playback of films there is no need for fast sustain speed, just need a minimum of 40mbit for the BR films i have ripped
Not all drives are used to start up games and programs, and these drives are excellent for backup and A/V usage.
Just as some people are interested in Atom based systems because they don't have the need for speed.
http://www.hardware.info/nl-NL/usersys/cmpxYp1lk2i...">http://www.hardware.info/nl-NL/usersys/cmpxYp1lk2i...