Overclock.net banner

[BMR] Seagate's new Sata III Hard Drive

3769 Views 38 Replies 17 Participants Last post by  pvp309rcp


Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB 3.5" Hard Drive

Quote:
Seagate Barracuda XT ST32000641AS Review
What to expect (NOT) from SATA-6Gbps (SATA III):

Not an immediate and dramatic across the board performance change.

Cache efficient and intensive applications will see immediate benefit.

Application optimization, controller, driver and OS optimization and areal density and other pending HDD technology will combine to push performance higher over the next 2-3 years.



Quote:
On 21 September 2009 Seagate Technology was the first and only manufacturer to offer a SATA 6Gbps (aka SATA-III) hard drive product with the industry's largest 64MB cache buffer as the 2TB Barracuda XT ST32000641AS was unveiled. Both combined improvements to burst rate and sustained bandwidth will mark a substantial improvement to the design of Hard Disk Drive (HDD) storage products, and the new technology is expected to give Solid State Drive (SSD) components some serious competition.


Quote:
The current Seagate family includes a low-power Barracuda LP, and a mainstream Barracuda 7200.12 hard drive. This new edition to the desktop hard drive family carves out the Barracuda XT for the upper-tier of performance. Benchmark Reviews has had great success with the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 series in the past, which already rivaled performance from the WD VelociRaptor in some tests, but Seagate plans to drop the 'dot' designation on the 7200 series and simplify their desktop storage family to Barracuda LS, Barracuda, and Barracuda XT.

Quote:
Benchmark Reviews expects to have a Seagate Barracuda XT product sample in October (2009), and we'll soon see just exactly how much more the new 6.0 GB/s interface adds to sustained file transfers on our ASUS P7P55D Premium test motherboard. There's no question that the increase from 32- to 64MB of internal cache buffer will improve the drives overall quickness, but which deserves the credit: 64MB cache or SATA-III 6Gbps? Seagate's David Burks explained that both are to be thanked. Cache gives the biggest boost, but once that cache is saturated with file(s), the larger bandwidth pipeline helps to transfer files to and from the disk. Furthermore, enthusiasts can 'short-stroke' the drive to make use of only the outer platter by using Seagate's SeaTools software.

Currently the Seagate SeaTools software only allows users to define a Logical Block Address (LBA) range, which can then be saved onto the drive's firmware. As of now this process requires an enthusiast to understand the total capacity of their drive in order to assign a short-stroke setting, but Seagate already has enthusiast how-to guides in the works. Taking a moment to step back and view the big picture, this could be Seagate's last stab at competing against the 10,000RPM WD VelociRaptor before launching their own SSD product line.
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=390&Itemid=60

NEWEGG [Thanks Diabolical999]
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148506

Special Comment

While Seagate has been THE benchmark for Hard drives construction for as long as I can remember it's recent acquisition of Maxtor may have temporarily dropped the overall quality of the Seagate line over the past year dropping under Western Digital in overall customer satisfaction. This being said, I think that Seagate can and will overcome this problem and come back to number 1 status as the Sata III's new drivers and the Motherboards begin to take full advantage of the Sata III's full potential. It was very smart for Seagate to make this new Hard Drive Backwards comparable all the way back to 1.5 gbs, 3.0 gbs, and 6 gbs but the new motherboards are still not ready for the new hard drives yet, but buying one now would probably not be a bad purchase for the future. It is plainly clear that the SSD technology will be the new drive of the future but in the meantime for us poor Overclockers, we do have another road to travel with this new Hard drive line.

Basically at the time of this Posting this Hard drive beats the Velo Raptor in Speed and Space with 2 TBs . Not too bad. Especially the new trick of letting you uses the outer part of the platters over the inners due to the speed differential.

Note: The new trick is not so new but it is new for the Seagate tools line of Software.

I give this Item 3 out of 5 Cool Points.
See less See more
8
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
You didn't post a source.

Hey, there it is. And look at that, they didn't bother to test it against the 2 TB WD drive, arguably its direct competition. And then they filled the test charts with stock results from a bunch of solid state drives. That's just super.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma8750 View Post
Basically at the time of this Posting this Hard drive beats the Velo Raptor in Speed and Space with 2 TBs . Not too bad. Especally the new trick of letting you uses the outer part of the platters over the inters due to the speed differential.
Congratulations, you are the first person to make me use the facepalm icon. I hope you're proud of yourself. That's a well-established technique, and nowhere in the article does it say it's new. You added that all by yourself. It's new to SeaTools, but even without SeaTools, you could already do it.
See less See more
2
  • Rep+
Reactions: 1
Note that SSD's loose ALLOT of Transfer speed/s after a while.
It's entirely correct to compare it to solid state drives, but I'd limit it to perhaps an X-25, a mainstream model like the OCZ Agility, and a top performer like that Patriot Torqz or whatever. Maybe the Kingston SSDNow thing too. But 7 is excessive, and there's a distinct lack of conventional hard drives.
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ecchi-BANZAII!!!
View Post

Note that SSD's loose ALLOT of Transfer speed/s after a while.

If this is true, are SSDs still worth it in the long run? Or does it keep degrading?
See less See more
TRIM has largely eliminated that.
Quote:


Originally Posted by MrDeodorant
View Post

It's entirely correct to compare it to solid state drives, but I'd limit it to perhaps an X-25, a mainstream model like the OCZ Agility, and a top performer like that Patriot Torqz or whatever. Maybe the Kingston SSDNow thing too. But 7 is excessive, and there's a distinct lack of conventional hard drives.

Good point, pretty stupid
See less See more
Quote:


Originally Posted by smoothjk
View Post

If this is true, are SSDs still worth it in the long run? Or does it keep degrading?

The SSD's main task is to have little latency which it doesn't loose, but it looses transfer speed after time, and will also degrade speed more for each GB you fill it.
See less See more
I would have liked to have at least seen a few of the 1.5s and 2s that are out now as well, just for comparison.

Because lets be honest here, this thing is still for storage regardless of how fast it is.
I'll stick with WD. No matter how fast it is, it is useless if it craps out. I do think it is a bit overkill for a 2TB drive. (for me, anyways)
Doesn't make much sense. 3Gpbs is 375MB/s. We are nowhere near that with hard drives. Marketing hype IMO.
Quote:


Originally Posted by Bonzâ„¢
View Post

Doesn't make much sense. 3Gpbs is 375MB/s. We are nowhere near that with hard drives. Marketing hype IMO.

3Gbps = 300MBps bandwidth but about 260MBps throughput
See less See more
Hey don't you go badmouthing Maxtor. My 5 year old Maxtor is running a lot better then my 1 year old Seagate.
Quote:


Originally Posted by liberalelephant
View Post

3Gbps = 300MBps bandwidth but about 260MBps throughput

Since when did 1Byte=10bits?
See less See more
Quote:


Originally Posted by Ecchi-BANZAII!!!
View Post

Since when did 1Byte=10bits?

It doesn't it has to do some with funky error checking, idk what its called....8/10 something? idk lol

Edit: someone who actually knows what they are talking about needs to explain this bc i dont lol
See less See more
Quote:

Originally Posted by liberalelephant View Post
It doesn't it has to do some with funky error checking, idk what its called....8/10 something? idk lol

Edit: someone who actually knows what they are talking about needs to explain this bc i dont lol
Well you should know that you told Bonzâ„¢ a lie.
3Gbps= 375 IF it's 3000 instead of 3072, but if it's 3072 then it's 384
So 3Gbps should be 384MBps (notice the b and B).
See less See more
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecchi-BANZAII!!! View Post
Well you should know that you told Bonzâ„¢ a lie.
3Gbps= 375 IF it's 3000 instead of 3072, but if it's 3072 then it's 384
So 3Gbps should be 384MBps (notice the b and B).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8b/10b_encoding
See less See more
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top