Seagate 7200.7 vs 7200.8--what's the difference?

[eLiu]

Hey all,
What exactly is the difference between the 7200.8 and 7200.7 markings? Is the .8 newer, since it seems to appear only on the larger drives (e.g. 300GB)?

i.e. is this new 'revision' cool enough that it'd be worth getting 1 300GB drive instead of 2 160's for the same price?

-Eric

 

[eLiu]

^^

Is the 7200.8 drive unreliable? It has some poor user reviews on some retailers' sites...

 

[Ronin]

.8's are quieter, and faster.

As far as .8's being unreliable, since many manufacturers are making them, you'd have to be a bit more specific.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: Ronin
.8's are quieter, and faster.

As far as .8's being unreliable, since many manufacturers are making them, you'd have to be a bit more specific.

What do you mean? Seagate doesn't make the drives?

Also, look at this...

According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 is more reliable than 7% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation.

According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 's predecessor [/b]( Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 ) is more reliable than 90% of the other drives in the survey [/b] that meet a certain minimum floor of participation
-----------------------------------------

Are the 7200.8's like a modern Deathstar or something? This is really surprising coming from Seagate since ppl say they're so reliable.

 

[imported_meatball]

Originally posted by: eLiu
Are the 7200.8's like a modern Deathstar or something? This is really surprising coming from Seagate since ppl say they're so reliable.

Uhhh, no. Not enough data. You left out this: "Note that the percentages in bold above may change as more information continues to be collected and analyzed."

And this: "In the end, those seeking quiet operation combined with Seagate's unique five-year warranty may be well served by the Barracuda 7200.8."

The Seagate is likely to be VERY reliable. However it doesn't sport the 16MB cache of the Maxtor, so performance in benchmarks will suffer. Real world peformance? Probably not noticeable.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: meatball

Originally posted by: eLiu
Are the 7200.8's like a modern Deathstar or something? This is really surprising coming from Seagate since ppl say they're so reliable.

Uhhh, no. Not enough data. You left out this: "Note that the percentages in bold above may change as more information continues to be collected and analyzed."

And this: "In the end, those seeking quiet operation combined with Seagate's unique five-year warranty may be well served by the Barracuda 7200.8."

The Seagate is likely to be VERY reliable. However it doesn't sport the 16MB cache of the Maxtor, so performance in benchmarks will suffer. Real world peformance? Probably not noticeable.

I suppose that's true...49 reviews on the 7200.8 vs 503 on the 7200.7.

I think the storagereview 'reliability' page is set up to report the latest #s from the survey, since they say anything about the low #'s, even if the data isn't really sufficient.

 

[driver8]

The Seagate is likely to be VERY reliable. However it doesn't sport the 16MB cache of the Maxtor, so performance in benchmarks will suffer. Real world peformance? Probably not noticeable.

no it is proving to be very UNreliable.

 

[eLiu]

So should I be safe and go for 2x160 instead of 1x300?

 

[Sunbird]

Why not? more space in the end

 

[Pariah]

The 7200.8 is the newer drive and is basically a higher capacity version of the 7200.7. It is about the same noisewise compared to the 7200.7. However, it is slower than the 7200.7, and a lot slower than the competition. SR just posted some results with their new testbed:

StorageReview's Office DriveMark 2006

The group leading WD 7200RPM drive is 38% faster, while the Maxtor beats it by 30%. Also note, by enabling NCQ the 7200.8 takes and even bigger ass kicking, with the WD drive (which has no NCQ incidently) performing 63% better. Those will absolutely be noticable differences that even the casual user would notice. The results also say something about Seagates implementation of NCQ which appears to be extremely poor. While it loses considerable performance in single application "workstation" benchmarks, Maxtor's NCQ slightly improves performance for their drives. I do actually own a 7200.8, and it is definitely a slow drive by current standards.

You shouldn't pay the reliability numbers for the 7200.8 any mind. SR's survey is weighted in such a way that older drives with the same failure rate as newer drives will score better for the obvious reason that they've been in the field longer giving a better indication of reliability. All newer drives in the survey have pretty poor ratings because of this.

Don't know what Ronin is talking about. Only Seagate produces Barracuda 7200.8 drives.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: Pariah
The 7200.8 is the newer drive and is basically a higher capacity version of the 7200.7. It is about the same noisewise compared to the 7200.7. However, it is slower than the 7200.7, and a lot slower than the competition. SR just posted some results with their new testbed:

StorageReview's Office DriveMark 2006

The group leading WD 7200RPM drive is 38% faster, while the Maxtor beats it by 30%. Also note, by enabling NCQ the 7200.8 takes and even bigger ass kicking, with the WD drive (which has no NCQ incidently) performing 63% better. Those will absolutely be noticable differences that even the casual user would notice. The results also say something about Seagates implementation of NCQ which appears to be extremely poor. While it loses considerable performance in single application "workstation" benchmarks, Maxtor's NCQ slightly improves performance for their drives. I do actually own a 7200.8, and it is definitely a slow drive by current standards.

You shouldn't pay the reliability numbers for the 7200.8 any mind. SR's survey is weighted in such a way that older drives with the same failure rate as newer drives will score better for the obvious reason that they've been in the field longer given a better indication of reliability. All newer drives in the survey have pretty poor ratings because of this.

Don't know what Ronin is talking about. Only Seagate produces Barracuda 7200.8 drives.

Oh wow, that was really informative Pariah, thanks!

Question though: is there any way to guage where the 7200.7 or the 7K250 would fall on those charts?

But if the 7200.8 really is slower, I think I'll just grab 2x160 7200.7 or 1x160 7200.7 & 1x160 7K250... Besides 2 drives would be safer in case one fails, I think?

 

[llamaSpire]

Originally posted by: Pariah
...
SR just posted some results with their new testbed:

StorageReview's Office DriveMark 2006
...

That was a great reply. I just thought I'd point out that it seems there is something suspicious going on with the 7200.8's performance. Looking at the discussion on storagereview.com of their 7200.8 review (http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=19436&st=0), they hypothesize that acoustic management goes off (and hence performance up) when NCQ is used (but that there is a lag in this taking effect, further confusing things). There's also SATA vs. PATA, and the fact that some reviews are favorable to both speed and noise:

Viperlair.com 7200.8 Review
PC Pro Review

Just FWIW; I'm sure someone out there has a better read on what's going on.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: llamaSpire

Originally posted by: Pariah
...
SR just posted some results with their new testbed:

StorageReview's Office DriveMark 2006
...

That was a great reply. I just thought I'd point out that it seems there is something suspicious going on with the 7200.8's performance. Looking at the discussion on storagereview.com of their 7200.8 review (http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=19436&st=0), they hypothesize that acoustic management goes off (and hence performance up) when NCQ is used (but that there is a lag in this taking effect, further confusing things). There's also SATA vs. PATA, and the fact that some reviews are favorable to both speed and noise:

Viperlair.com 7200.8 Review
PC Pro Review

Just FWIW; I'm sure someone out there has a better read on what's going on.

Wow...Tom's Hardware also like the Seagate drives & reported good performance.

I wonder why storagereview shows it as being so awfully slow...

 

[imported_meatball]

Originally posted by: driver8

The Seagate is likely to be VERY reliable. However it doesn't sport the 16MB cache of the Maxtor, so performance in benchmarks will suffer. Real world peformance? Probably not noticeable.

no it is proving to be very UNreliable.

Baloney.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: Pariah
The 7200.8 is the newer drive and is basically a higher capacity version of the 7200.7. It is about the same noisewise compared to the 7200.7. However, it is slower than the 7200.7, and a lot slower than the competition. SR just posted some results with their new testbed:

StorageReview's Office DriveMark 2006

The group leading WD 7200RPM drive is 38% faster, while the Maxtor beats it by 30%. Also note, by enabling NCQ the 7200.8 takes and even bigger ass kicking, with the WD drive (which has no NCQ incidently) performing 63% better. Those will absolutely be noticable differences that even the casual user would notice. The results also say something about Seagates implementation of NCQ which appears to be extremely poor. While it loses considerable performance in single application "workstation" benchmarks, Maxtor's NCQ slightly improves performance for their drives. I do actually own a 7200.8, and it is definitely a slow drive by current standards.

You shouldn't pay the reliability numbers for the 7200.8 any mind. SR's survey is weighted in such a way that older drives with the same failure rate as newer drives will score better for the obvious reason that they've been in the field longer giving a better indication of reliability. All newer drives in the survey have pretty poor ratings because of this.

Don't know what Ronin is talking about. Only Seagate produces Barracuda 7200.8 drives.

Do some research, bud, and you'll find some other drives . And, find another review site, because there are plenty of others that give accurate ones of .8, whereas your source well...sucks.

Misleading the folks here..you should be ashamed.

 

[svi]

Ronin, could you provide links to these other reviews? Also, which manufacturers are you referring to?

 

[Gerbil333]

Originally posted by: Ronin
.8's are quieter, and faster.

As far as .8's being unreliable, since many manufacturers are making them, you'd have to be a bit more specific.

According to users on the SPCR forums, the 7200.8's are louder than the 7200.7's, which were louder than the Barracuda IV's. Get a Samsung Spinpoint if you want a quiet drive.

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: Gerbil333

Originally posted by: Ronin
.8's are quieter, and faster.

As far as .8's being unreliable, since many manufacturers are making them, you'd have to be a bit more specific.

According to users on the SPCR forums, the 7200.8's are louder than the 7200.7's, which were louder than the Barracuda IV's. Get a Samsung Spinpoint if you want a quiet drive.

I hear the .8's are louder than the 7's.

 

[furballi]

It's slow because the tester did not properly configure windows.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: eLiu

Originally posted by: llamaSpire

Originally posted by: Pariah
...
SR just posted some results with their new testbed:

StorageReview's Office DriveMark 2006
...

That was a great reply. I just thought I'd point out that it seems there is something suspicious going on with the 7200.8's performance. Looking at the discussion on storagereview.com of their 7200.8 review (http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopic=19436&st=0), they hypothesize that acoustic management goes off (and hence performance up) when NCQ is used (but that there is a lag in this taking effect, further confusing things). There's also SATA vs. PATA, and the fact that some reviews are favorable to both speed and noise:

Viperlair.com 7200.8 Review
PC Pro Review

Just FWIW; I'm sure someone out there has a better read on what's going on.

Wow...Tom's Hardware also like the Seagate drives & reported good performance.

I wonder why storagereview shows it as being so awfully slow...

Because THG has no idea how to review hard drives. His benchmark suite does not give any useful results. All his tests but one were low level tests which though interesting are not good indicators of real world performance. Most of those are about as relevant and guessing Doom3 results for video cards simply by comparing fill rates of the cards. If there is a significant difference, you can probably assume the one with the better fill rate is faster, at higher resolutions at least. If they are close, it's anyone's guess. One benchmark that should be taken seriously is the access time benchmark which the 7200.8 came in dead last and by a large margin. A very large margin, in fact, if you eliminate the 3 drives ahead of it, that were all Seagate drives as well.

Do some research, bud, and you'll find some other drives . And, find another review site, because there are plenty of others that give accurate ones of .8, whereas your source well...sucks.

Misleading the folks here..you should be ashamed.

Yup, this from some clown claiming multiple different companies produce and sell Barracuda 7200.8 hard drives.

 

[Ronin]

Clown? Dude, sit down and stop making yourself look like an idiot. Just citing your little site took your credibility in this thread and tossed it in the crapper. If you want to continue to make yourself look more like an idiot, keep talking. If not, follow the golden rule. You are hardly an expert in the field of Hard Drive tests, as you've already shown.

This 'clown' has more experience, and knowledge, with the present subject, than you obviously do. And, I never said other companies sell Barracudas, twit. If you were able to logically read through a sentence, you would have been able to figure out that little tidbit without a problem.

 

[Pariah]

I stand by everything I have said here. Your personal attacks do nothing to strengthen the points you have done nothing to back up. Whether or not you want to believe SR's benchmarks is totally up to you. I don't need SR's benchmarks to prove to me how slow 7200.8's are since I own one.

 

[Bozo Galora]

I dont want to speak for anyone else, but perhaps Ronin is remarking that up until recently drives from Seagate would say "Product of Singapore" or "Product of Malaysia" or Phillipines or China etc.

However as noted below, new drives (7200.9) will now be an amalgam of various specialist factories.
Eventually, all will say "Product of China", tho parts will come from all over Asia.

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.as...05/7/21/business/11541459&sec=business

(Snipped Quote)
The new disk drive products to be introduced in by early next year comprise disk drives for desktop, notebooks, entry server, digital video recorder, automobile, video game, and digital camera markets.

?The facility in Penang will produce the next generation of read and write heads for perpendicular recording, which enables the reading and writing of a larger volume of data,? Pope said.

The facilities in Singapore are involved in producing the finished media, while the operations in Thailand and China respectively specialise in making the head gimbal and disk drive assembly, Pope said.

For the 2005 fiscal year ended July 1, the group had invested RM118.4mil in Malaysia, bringing investment to date in the country to RM2.5bil.
(Unquote)

The 7200.8 also came with 2 dif controller chips, depending on when you bought it.

 

[Sunbird]

Originally posted by: Ronin
.8's are quieter, and faster.

As far as .8's being unreliable, since many manufacturers are making them, you'd have to be a bit more specific.

When will you edit this silly post, that is why you are being called a clown, who are these other people/manufacturers that make .8's except seagate (the chinese counterfieters perhaps) ?

 

[eLiu]

Pariah,
Do you know how well the 7200.7 line compares in the latest SR tests?

What about SR makes their tests more valid? I can't claim to know anything about HDs, so I'm just curious.

Also, do you recommend any comapnies/models (cheap) on the market right now? I just picked up a 160GB 7200.7 because of its solid reviews as a dependable & reasonably fast drive. But I will probably get another 160-ish GB drive to replace my aging 40GB Maxtor.

-Eric