Seagate Barracuda SATA V (serial ATA-150)

[NFS4]

http://www.lostcircuits.com/advice/sata150/

 

[Pariah]

Those benchmarks look rather suspect. If the HDTach #'s are correct, then the Barracuda V is a considerable disappointment as those numbers are plain bad. I don't understand their WB #'s at all as they don't look accurate if you compare them to SR's #'s. Keeping in mind that LC is using a considerably faster system than SR, you would think the results would be higher. However, the D740X scored 4.16MB/s on the Business Winmark at LC, while at SR it scored 8MB/s. Even worse is the Highend where the D740X scored 11.7MB/s in comparison to SR's 26.7MB/s. LC's results make it look like the Barracuda V is smoking the D740X, however, even if the V's results are accurate, the D740X's certainly aren't making the comparison inaccurate.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200201/20020124WD1200JB_5.html

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Those benchmarks look rather suspect. If the HDTach #'s are correct, then the Barracuda V is a considerable disappointment as those numbers are plain bad. I don't understand their WB #'s at all as they don't look accurate if you compare them to SR's #'s. Keeping in mind that LC is using a considerably faster system than SR, you would think the results would be higher. However, the D740X scored 4.16MB/s on the Business Winmark at LC, while at SR it scored 8MB/s. Even worse is the Highend where the D740X scored 11.7MB/s in comparison to SR's 26.7MB/s. LC's results make it look like the Barracuda V is smoking the D740X, however, even if the V's results are accurate, the D740X's certainly aren't making the comparison inaccurate.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200201/20020124WD1200JB_5.html

Are they using EXACTLY the same test beds? If not, the numbers are of course going to be off.

Regardless, the article has LOTS of good info in it.

 

[ViRGE]

Good info yes, but I don't trust the numbers one bit.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Good info yes, but I don't trust the numbers one bit.

Exactly. The article does have some good info, but the benchmarks are bogus. After closer examination, the conditions under which they ran the BM's were rigged in such a way as to render the results pretty useless. They don't appear to have been rigged in bad faith with the intention of giving one side the advantage, but they're still inaccurate.