-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are these IBM 15,000 RPM drives at Buy.com something new?
- Thread starter BuckNaked
- Start date
Well, IBM had announced them I think in January, maybe early February, so I guess they are finally out now. They are only the second hard drive maker to have 15krpm drives. I think Seagate is going to be releasing their successor to the X15 soon, too.
Wow, $577.95 for a 9.1gb drive. You can get an 18gb X15 drive for like $400 new.
Wow, $577.95 for a 9.1gb drive. You can get an 18gb X15 drive for like $400 new.
yeah WTF, IBM was increasing the platter density, that couldn't be the one we're all waiting for.. UNLESS, of course, they increased it, and decreased disk size to reduce access times...
why do I say this? well all 10K RPM drives have 9 gig platters, and I think the X15 does too, IBM was promising to increase their platter density, which, in conjunction to the 15000 RPM speed, would increase transfer rates quite well..
you have to remember that platter density isn't increased so quickly in SCSI drives, they go up as fast as IDE, just not hitting every interval (10-15-20-25-30)..
why do I say this? well all 10K RPM drives have 9 gig platters, and I think the X15 does too, IBM was promising to increase their platter density, which, in conjunction to the 15000 RPM speed, would increase transfer rates quite well..
you have to remember that platter density isn't increased so quickly in SCSI drives, they go up as fast as IDE, just not hitting every interval (10-15-20-25-30)..
I didn't really understand most of your post soccerman, looked liked you were having a secret conversation with yourself... but from what I could piece together you seem to have your drive stats messed up. First off, the stats on buy.com's site are wrong.
Cache / Buffer Size - None somehow I doubt that to be the case (actually 4MB)
Average Seek Time - 6.1 ms this number is wrong too by quite a bit (3.4ms for 18GB version)
"well all 10K RPM drives have 9 gig platters, and I think the X15 does too"
Actually, none of these drives do. Atlas 10K II is 7.3GB's, IBM36LZX is 6.1, both of Seagate's 10K drives are 6.1, Fujitsu's latest is 7.3, and the X15 is 3.6GB's a platter. The X15's number is a bit misleading because it uses smaller platters than the other drives, so if it used 3in platters it would be higher. In comparison, the new IBM drive is using around 6GB a platter which is quite a bit higher than the X15. The X15 2 will probably exceed that by a bit.
"yes they are new, but they are not any faster!!!"
You have a review sample that no one else has? I'd really be interested to see some benchmarks to back this statement up.
"buy.com's prices suck!!! "
Actually, their prices are pretty good. Considering IBM is selling the 9GB drive direct for $600, Buy.com is a bit cheaper.
Cache / Buffer Size - None somehow I doubt that to be the case (actually 4MB)
Average Seek Time - 6.1 ms this number is wrong too by quite a bit (3.4ms for 18GB version)
"well all 10K RPM drives have 9 gig platters, and I think the X15 does too"
Actually, none of these drives do. Atlas 10K II is 7.3GB's, IBM36LZX is 6.1, both of Seagate's 10K drives are 6.1, Fujitsu's latest is 7.3, and the X15 is 3.6GB's a platter. The X15's number is a bit misleading because it uses smaller platters than the other drives, so if it used 3in platters it would be higher. In comparison, the new IBM drive is using around 6GB a platter which is quite a bit higher than the X15. The X15 2 will probably exceed that by a bit.
"yes they are new, but they are not any faster!!!"
You have a review sample that no one else has? I'd really be interested to see some benchmarks to back this statement up.
"buy.com's prices suck!!! "
Actually, their prices are pretty good. Considering IBM is selling the 9GB drive direct for $600, Buy.com is a bit cheaper.
Quantum crams 36 gigs of data onto five 7.3 GB - Storage Review
why is it that they (the 10KII's for example) ship in 9 gig, 18 gig, and 36 gig versions??
sorry for being confusing in my first post 🙂
Its five platters, each storing 3.7 gigs of data - From Storage Review.
wow, that X15 has a lot less then I thought.. the drive Storage review had was 18 gigs, that would require 5 platters if each was ~3 gigs/platter..
one thing I've noticed in IDE drives is that the ones with many platters have slower access times, so why isn't that true with SCSI drives??
The X15's number is a bit misleading because it uses smaller platters than the other drivesp
I already know that, I didn't mention it in my post 🙂
why is it that they (the 10KII's for example) ship in 9 gig, 18 gig, and 36 gig versions??
sorry for being confusing in my first post 🙂
Its five platters, each storing 3.7 gigs of data - From Storage Review.
wow, that X15 has a lot less then I thought.. the drive Storage review had was 18 gigs, that would require 5 platters if each was ~3 gigs/platter..
one thing I've noticed in IDE drives is that the ones with many platters have slower access times, so why isn't that true with SCSI drives??
The X15's number is a bit misleading because it uses smaller platters than the other drivesp
I already know that, I didn't mention it in my post 🙂
"why is it that they (the 10KII's for example) ship in 9 gig, 18 gig, and 36 gig versions??"
I don't think there is any technical reason, just sort of an industry standard that developed over time.
"that would require 5 platters if each was ~3 gigs/platter.."
Yup, which is why there was no version above 18GB available.
"so why isn't that true with SCSI drives??"
It is true, just not to the same extent, as SCSI drives are manufactured to higher standards. If you take a look at Seagate's drives 9GB-36GB, they usually have the same seek, but the 73GB drives are always a bit slower. The same thing is the case with the new IBM 15k drive. The 18GB has 3.4ms seek, while the 36GB has 4.1ms.
I don't think there is any technical reason, just sort of an industry standard that developed over time.
"that would require 5 platters if each was ~3 gigs/platter.."
Yup, which is why there was no version above 18GB available.
"so why isn't that true with SCSI drives??"
It is true, just not to the same extent, as SCSI drives are manufactured to higher standards. If you take a look at Seagate's drives 9GB-36GB, they usually have the same seek, but the 73GB drives are always a bit slower. The same thing is the case with the new IBM 15k drive. The 18GB has 3.4ms seek, while the 36GB has 4.1ms.
I mean, I don't understand how they get 9 gig drives using 7 gig platters, unless they disable part of the platter or something (not just one side, but part of a side I bet)..
that could also be part of the reason why Storage Review was surprised at the X15's scores.. They thought it would be better in terms of access times..
so with today's platter densities on IDE drives, what would we be capable of getting on a platter the size of the ones in the X15? what about the 10KII?
that could also be part of the reason why Storage Review was surprised at the X15's scores.. They thought it would be better in terms of access times..
so with today's platter densities on IDE drives, what would we be capable of getting on a platter the size of the ones in the X15? what about the 10KII?
Part of a platter is not used.
"They thought it would be better in terms of access times.."
They expected more, because according to the specs it should have been about 5.9ms, instead of the relatively slow 6.8 it tested at. It's missed the mark by quite a bit.
"what would we be capable of getting on a platter the size of the ones in the X15? what about the 10KII?"
I don't know, there are too many variables, including how the data is zoned on the platters, and how large the center spindle is where no data is. The Atlas 10K III will have 18GB/platter, which doesn't put it all that far behind IDE. It will be interesting to see what the X15 sequel can achieve.
"They thought it would be better in terms of access times.."
They expected more, because according to the specs it should have been about 5.9ms, instead of the relatively slow 6.8 it tested at. It's missed the mark by quite a bit.
"what would we be capable of getting on a platter the size of the ones in the X15? what about the 10KII?"
I don't know, there are too many variables, including how the data is zoned on the platters, and how large the center spindle is where no data is. The Atlas 10K III will have 18GB/platter, which doesn't put it all that far behind IDE. It will be interesting to see what the X15 sequel can achieve.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
