Seagate Cheetah 15K.4
Update: You can stop looking for reasons why this drive is performing far below user expectations baumerz. Not that any of the engineers would tell the janitor anyway. From the review conclusion:
"In fact, the glaring lack of improvements in overall performance is enough to make one wonder whether or not this review sample operates properly. When approached, however, Seagate frankly admits that the numbers borne out above represent the differences in performance that one may expect between the 15K.4 and its precursor. With its latest generation of 10K and 15K units, Seagate claims a greater-than-ever emphasis on reliability and implies that delivering the across-the-board improvements that some expect would compromise this goal."
SR has posted some benchmarks for the Cheetah 15k.4 as well as someone at 2CPU's forums. I guess the most interesting part is that SR has posted 2 sets of benchmarks, a desktop mode set and server mode set. Seagate has apparently decided to release a utility that allows you to optimize drives for usage. The server mode results are simply awful in the workstation benchmarks, while the desktop numbers are decent with 2 new records set, yet still disappointing when you see by how little. After seeing the Atlas 10k V benchmarks I had some high hopes for the next gen of 15k, yet it looks like Seagate has fallen on their face in this round basically running a dead heat with Maxtor's 10k offering. I'm glad I decided to bypass Seagate this round and switch over to Maxtor. The 15K II looks like it will be a much better performer.
15k.4 vs Atlas 10K V vs Fujitsu Mas3735 vs 15k.3
2CPU forum Seagate Cheetah 15K.4 147GB benchmarks
Edit:
The above link contains the benchmarks for desktop mode. If you want to see the abysmal server mode numbers you can browse SR's results yourself. While the server mode does perform better in server benchmarks, it is still oddly behind the previous generation 15k.3, which wasn't exactly leading the 15k pack to begin with. Not too impressive.
Update: You can stop looking for reasons why this drive is performing far below user expectations baumerz. Not that any of the engineers would tell the janitor anyway. From the review conclusion:
"In fact, the glaring lack of improvements in overall performance is enough to make one wonder whether or not this review sample operates properly. When approached, however, Seagate frankly admits that the numbers borne out above represent the differences in performance that one may expect between the 15K.4 and its precursor. With its latest generation of 10K and 15K units, Seagate claims a greater-than-ever emphasis on reliability and implies that delivering the across-the-board improvements that some expect would compromise this goal."
SR has posted some benchmarks for the Cheetah 15k.4 as well as someone at 2CPU's forums. I guess the most interesting part is that SR has posted 2 sets of benchmarks, a desktop mode set and server mode set. Seagate has apparently decided to release a utility that allows you to optimize drives for usage. The server mode results are simply awful in the workstation benchmarks, while the desktop numbers are decent with 2 new records set, yet still disappointing when you see by how little. After seeing the Atlas 10k V benchmarks I had some high hopes for the next gen of 15k, yet it looks like Seagate has fallen on their face in this round basically running a dead heat with Maxtor's 10k offering. I'm glad I decided to bypass Seagate this round and switch over to Maxtor. The 15K II looks like it will be a much better performer.
15k.4 vs Atlas 10K V vs Fujitsu Mas3735 vs 15k.3
2CPU forum Seagate Cheetah 15K.4 147GB benchmarks
Edit:
The above link contains the benchmarks for desktop mode. If you want to see the abysmal server mode numbers you can browse SR's results yourself. While the server mode does perform better in server benchmarks, it is still oddly behind the previous generation 15k.3, which wasn't exactly leading the 15k pack to begin with. Not too impressive.
jk
Facebook
Twitter