7200.9 reviewed storagereview

[orangat]

I haven't read it yet to give a comment.
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200510/ST3500641AS_2.html

 

[tjaisv]

Thanks for posting it.

 

[alimoalem]

basically, it's not what we've all been waiting for

 

[LxMxFxD3]

I hate storage review. 4 blocks of ads per page. Thats ridiculous.

 

[orangat]

Now that I've read it, my comments:
First the review wasn't meant to be a vis-a-vis comparison with Maxtor/WD/Hitachi/etc. The other drives were included to show generational differences and for contrast (with larger nos. of platters/densities etc). The Hitachi and Samsung drives are only 80gb/platter models.

The 7200.9 improves on the weakness of the 7200.8 poor seek times but is still a tick behind other manufacturers.The 7200.8 write seeks are an atrocious 23ms. This is why the benchmarks are all over the place for that model.

SR drivemarks are pretty good its faster the 7200.8 models. No doubt the improved seek times have someting to do with it. No other high end benchmarks are available except for iometer where it does as well as the 7200.8.

I'd like to see a 7200.9 with 133gb/platter reviewed to see if transfer rates can be improved or more high level benchmarks.

 

[Auric]

Noisy. :thumbsdown:

 

[orangat]

Auric,
Remember that its a 4 platter design for large 500Gb capacity, therefore it cannot as I have said in my comments be compared directly with the Samsung drive. Its not too far off from the Hitachi (5 platter disk) imo.