hard drive seagate 500gb

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Hi again , i would like to to know which hdd out of these two is better, ie faster. im looking to get a sata2 500gb hdd for my current AGP pc which only sports a saat1 interface but i am going to do a new build next year and add this hdd to it.

both are seagate hdd and the only major difference i see is the cache size?

here they are anyway:

Computer hardware and software at amazing prices, available online from Scan Computers UK

Computer hardware and software at amazing prices, available online from Scan Computers UK

i am mainly going to use it for storage and launching maybe one or two applications thanks in advance

[peterb]

Logic would suggest that the one with the larger cache would be faster - particularly if you are repeatedly accessing the same file. How much difference it makes in practice in general use I couldn't say without extensive comparison tests. Google may help.

[arthurleung]

Pick the cheapest one you can get.

7200.11 is indeed a tiny bit faster, will probably take extra 0.1s more to run a typical application.

For long-term storage speed is not that important. 70MB/s and 80MB/s is not gonna make much differences. If you other hard drive (or whatever device) can only copy at 50MB/s then getting the 7200.11 would not be any faster because it is not the bottleneck.

7200.10 design have been proven compared to the new 7200.11. In terms of reliability buying a 7200.10 would be a better choice.

[this_is_gav]

In terms of reliability buying a 7200.10 would be a better choice.

That I believe, will be the first time anyone has ever written that sentence.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

thanks guys. im panning on buying a raptor as my main drive for my enxt pc and use this has a storage. i guess i will get the cheaper one has there appears to be not much difference in comparison. cheers

[TooNice]

I've not heard anything particularly bad about the .10 in terms of reliability (other than the odd issue that pops up with every drive), but it seems to be very inconsistent in terms of performance and noise.

Some claims to be very quiet yet others, including my own, is noisier than my Raptor. Some firmwares had very nice performance, others were quite a bit slower slower.

Personally, for storage, I'd go WD AAKS or Samsung T166 (or F1 when more widely available) right now.

[Lucio]

Well, I just recieved one of the 7200.11 drives (since I've always had good experience with the Seagate drives) for my new build.

I'll let you know how it performs (splitting it into a 40/40/420 parition for Vista/XP/Data)

[999tigger]

Samsung spinpoint 500gb has won all the tests/awards on speed , noise and performance.
Ask scan to do it on Today only.

[arthurleung]

At the very least none of my Seagate drives have failed (yet) including

4 7200.7 200G IDE
2 7200.8 300G SATA
4 7200.9 300G SATA
2 7200.10 500G SATA (In FreeAgent)
1 7200.10 400G SATA
1 7200.10 750G SATA (In FreeAgent Pro)

I bought the drives about 6~12 months after initial release rather than when it is "fresh".
Since the OP just want to know the difference between 7200.11 and 7200.10, I am simply telling the relative reliability. There are be other reliable drives out there, but my 7200.10s have not died yet, so what is wrong? (touch wood)

[LegacyOne]

500 GB Seagate ST3500630AS Barracuda 7200.10 will do.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Samsung spinpoint 500gb has won all the tests/awards on speed , noise and performance.
Ask scan to do it on Today only.

i thought samsung made the worse hdd's

[Lucio]

Well, I've got the new drive up and running, it's whisper quiet (though admitedly in a Silverstone drive bay). In fact I can't hear anything from the system bar a slight whirr of the PSU fan and even then I have to really listen for it.

[nvening]

i thought samsung made the worse hdd's

no no, they make the best hdds

[Thorsson]

As long as you avoid Maxtor, at the moment you're OK. But the current generation of Samsungs are known for running cool and quiet. I bought a WD, because it was £10 cheaper at the time, and that seems pretty quiet too.

But I'd go for the 7200.11 now - it has 32Mb cache and that is bound to make a difference. Seagate have the best warranty too.

[iranu]

StorageReview.com's Drive Performance Resource Center | StorageReview.com

[Dreaming]

thanks guys. im panning on buying a raptor as my main drive for my enxt pc and use this has a storage. i guess i will get the cheaper one has there appears to be not much difference in comparison. cheers

Raptor's kinda redundant now with the high data densities you can get now. I believe it will be still be good in a server application (like RAID arrays) if you have lots of requests for lots of small different bits of data, it's got to retrieve them from all over the disk. But for the average user, constant read writes I believe are just as fast or negligibly slower in the new WD AAKS / Samsung T166 etc. that it makes not much sense to spend the premium on a raptor especially when they're loud, hot, and only have a small amount of space. Bare in mind the newest version of the raptor is over 18 months old now (think beginning of 2006).

Since nothing else has happened in that time, 'ordinary' 7200rpm drives have overtaken them in terms of data density, reliability, power consumption, price per performance and so on. Personally, I can't see the point of them at all right now.