Topic Title: Seagate ships 4TB Desktop HDD
Topic Summary:
Created On: 04/02/2013 02:48 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 04/02/2013 02:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
stumped
Wizard

Posts: 7275
Joined: 11/13/2009

"Seagate announces the availability of its 4TB Desktop HDD internal hard drive that offers capacity and performance at a lower cost."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57577479-1/seagate-ships-4tb-desktop-hdd/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title



-------------------------

Intel I7 960 @ 3.87ghz *Intel DX58SO *HIS HD6970 2gb *Corsair TX650M *2x4gb Corsair XMS3 *WD Black 1TB *Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit ***Asus N71Jq laptop *Intel I7 720QM Processor *Mobility Radeon HD5730 1gb *8gb Ram *Windows 7 64bit ** Toshiba P75-A7200 * Intel I7-4700MQ * Windows 8.1 64bit


 


 * A clear conscience is usually a sign of bad memory *

 04/02/2013 04:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
black_zion
80 Column Mind

Posts: 12662
Joined: 04/17/2008

Unlike the previous Barracuda drives that spun at 7,200rpm, the new Desktop HDD spins at only 5,900rpm and consumes about 35 percent less energy. Seagate says that the drive will still offer fast performance with a sustained writing speed of about 145MBps.


Stupid decision.

-------------------------
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2, FX-8350 w/ Corsair H60, 8 GiB G.SKILL RipjawsX DDR3-2133, XFX HD 7970 Ghz, 512GB Vertex 4, 256GB Vector, 240GB Agility 3, Creative X-Fi Titanium w/ Creative Gigaworks S750, SeaSonic X750, HP ZR2440w, Win 7 Ultimate x64
 04/02/2013 07:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
stumped
Wizard

Posts: 7275
Joined: 11/13/2009

Originally posted by: black_zion
Unlike the previous Barracuda drives that spun at 7,200rpm, the new Desktop HDD spins at only 5,900rpm and consumes about 35 percent less energy. Seagate says that the drive will still offer fast performance with a sustained writing speed of about 145MBps.
Stupid decision.

Holy crap...how did I miss that?!



-------------------------

Intel I7 960 @ 3.87ghz *Intel DX58SO *HIS HD6970 2gb *Corsair TX650M *2x4gb Corsair XMS3 *WD Black 1TB *Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit ***Asus N71Jq laptop *Intel I7 720QM Processor *Mobility Radeon HD5730 1gb *8gb Ram *Windows 7 64bit ** Toshiba P75-A7200 * Intel I7-4700MQ * Windows 8.1 64bit


 


 * A clear conscience is usually a sign of bad memory *

 04/02/2013 08:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Forum Moderator

Posts: 578
Joined: 08/28/2012

For a desktop machine they're probably right.  An SSD works better for speed than any mechnical drive would, and if you're buying a single 4TB drive for a desktop machine, then you probably care more about capacity than speed anyway.

Something like a RAID5 that isn't run from a chipset "fake-raid" is still the best option if you need both, but if you go there then the machine isn't really a desktop anymore. 



-------------------------

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
Post Count: +8510
Troll Hunter

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.



Edited: 04/02/2013 at 08:24 PM by Mime
 04/02/2013 08:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
black_zion
80 Column Mind

Posts: 12662
Joined: 04/17/2008

Aye, in a NAS or server it'd fly, but something does stink here, maybe as platter densities increase spindle speed is going to have to decrease the same way that CDs spun at >50x and DVDs dropped to 16x, or that since these huge capacities are so new the technology hasn't had time to catch up to be able to read and write at 7200RPM with ECC. Prices now look like it's selling for $190 which isn't a bad price, and the slower speed will help people who use it in external enclosures, DVRs and HTPCs, and digital security systems. Time will tell though how a 7200 RPM model will compare.

-------------------------
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2, FX-8350 w/ Corsair H60, 8 GiB G.SKILL RipjawsX DDR3-2133, XFX HD 7970 Ghz, 512GB Vertex 4, 256GB Vector, 240GB Agility 3, Creative X-Fi Titanium w/ Creative Gigaworks S750, SeaSonic X750, HP ZR2440w, Win 7 Ultimate x64
 04/02/2013 09:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Forum Moderator

Posts: 578
Joined: 08/28/2012

A home server, maybe. 

There's really no compairing what's possible with storage in a real server compared to a desktop.  I think there's just not much point in making 7200 RPM drives for the desktop anymore.  SSDs are taking that spot over while "green" drives often do just as well everywhere else without as much noise and power usage.



-------------------------

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
Post Count: +8510
Troll Hunter

The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.

 04/02/2013 09:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
black_zion
80 Column Mind

Posts: 12662
Joined: 04/17/2008

True, even higher capacity SSDs at the 256GB and 512GB level becoming ever more affordable. Really the only reason you would have a drive this big, well two reasons, one is that you're a massive idiot if you trust 4TB of data to a single failure point (businesses will use them in protection RAID of course, home users not so often), and two is that if you have a massive amount of HD video and a regular 5200RPM drive is sufficient for that.

The more I think about it though the less sense these huge drives make outside a NAS. Servers will use SSDs, hybrid drives, and 10K and 15K SAS drives, home users like you said will use SSDs, hybrid drives, and "green" drives, laptops will be SSD only before to terribly much longer...It does remind me about how Intel said we would have 10ghz chips by now

-------------------------
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2, FX-8350 w/ Corsair H60, 8 GiB G.SKILL RipjawsX DDR3-2133, XFX HD 7970 Ghz, 512GB Vertex 4, 256GB Vector, 240GB Agility 3, Creative X-Fi Titanium w/ Creative Gigaworks S750, SeaSonic X750, HP ZR2440w, Win 7 Ultimate x64
 04/03/2013 08:10 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Forum Moderator

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/28/2012

Originally posted by: black_zion True, even higher capacity SSDs at the 256GB and 512GB level becoming ever more affordable. Really the only reason you would have a drive this big, well two reasons, one is that you're a massive idiot if you trust 4TB of data to a single failure point (businesses will use them in protection RAID of course, home users not so often), and two is that if you have a massive amount of HD video and a regular 5200RPM drive is sufficient for that. The more I think about it though the less sense these huge drives make outside a NAS. Servers will use SSDs, hybrid drives, and 10K and 15K SAS drives, home users like you said will use SSDs, hybrid drives, and "green" drives, laptops will be SSD only before to terribly much longer...It does remind me about how Intel said we would have 10ghz chips by now

 

I've got a Seagate LP 2TB as my Primary drive in Incommunicado, it's a 5900rpm, it's faster than my old RADI0 Array of 7200.10's I think the platterdesnity is so high, that the lower speed doesn't hamper it that much.



-------------------------

 04/03/2013 08:49 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
black_zion
80 Column Mind

Posts: 12662
Joined: 04/17/2008

Not to spam, but I saw that Newegg today has the RETAIL version (as opposed to the standard bubble wrapped lower binned OEM version) for $169.99 with promo code in today's deals email, discount from $209. I'm tempted to grab one and stick it in a drawer at that price.

-------------------------
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2, FX-8350 w/ Corsair H60, 8 GiB G.SKILL RipjawsX DDR3-2133, XFX HD 7970 Ghz, 512GB Vertex 4, 256GB Vector, 240GB Agility 3, Creative X-Fi Titanium w/ Creative Gigaworks S750, SeaSonic X750, HP ZR2440w, Win 7 Ultimate x64
 04/03/2013 06:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Immortal Lobster
Forum Moderator

Posts: 226
Joined: 08/28/2012

Originally posted by: stumped

 

Can a monitor delete this guys hijacks? Six of them at last count.

 

Done.



-------------------------

 04/04/2013 04:31 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Thanny
Alpha Geek

Posts: 1458
Joined: 07/13/2009

Originally posted by: black_zionthe same way that CDs spun at >50x and DVDs dropped to 16x

That's not true at all.  For one thing, optical discs are designed for CLV - constant linear velocity.  The rotational speed varies with the track position, to provide the same bit rate.  Hard drives, of course, are CAV - constant angular velocity, where the rotational speed is constant, while the bit rate varies.  Of course, for a while now, most optical drives have combined CLV and CAV to improve seek performance, write consistency, and other things.

But the main point is that optical disc speed multitpliers are not defined by the rotational speed, but the data rate, which is completely different for CD's and DVD's.  A speed of 1x with a CD is just standard music playback, which is 44100 samples/sec * 16 bits/sample * 2 channels = 176,400 bytes/sec.  Actually, it's seventy-five 2352-byte sectors per second, and since 304 bytes out of each 2352-byte sector are used for error correction when storing data instead of music, the data read rate is 153,600 bytes/sec.

For a DVD, 1x is more arbitrarily defined as 1,385,000 bytes/sec, which should be enough to read a movie from the disc in real time.

And it's not just the data rate.  A speed of 1x with a DVD using standard CLV is spinning three times faster than 1x with a CD.  That, plus the increased data density and reduced error correction overhead, is what makes a 1x DVD read nine times faster than a 1x CD read.

While the comparison is flawed, I do find it credible that the main motivation for 5900rpm may be the data density.  It might require a lot more engineering to get the drive operating reliably at 7200rpm.  And as long as the sustained transfer rate remains high, the energy saving features would be a plus.

 04/04/2013 09:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
black_zion
80 Column Mind

Posts: 12662
Joined: 04/17/2008

I know its not the same thing, like saying how a 400bhp naturally aspirated, supercharged, and turbocharged engine are the same when they are completely different, or like saying how a Bulldozer and STARS Mhz are the same. I was just using an example of how higher densities allow for slower speeds while retaining high transfer rates. I guess I could have used a multiple platter vs single platter comparison, but you get the idea. But its strength lies in sequential transfers, and one would imagine randoms are just as terrible as with any other drive, especially due to the way programs, especially Windows itself, tends to spread itself out across the entire drive.

-------------------------
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2, FX-8350 w/ Corsair H60, 8 GiB G.SKILL RipjawsX DDR3-2133, XFX HD 7970 Ghz, 512GB Vertex 4, 256GB Vector, 240GB Agility 3, Creative X-Fi Titanium w/ Creative Gigaworks S750, SeaSonic X750, HP ZR2440w, Win 7 Ultimate x64
Statistics
86427 users are registered to the AMD Support and Game forum.
There are currently 3 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.