Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Storage (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/storage/)
-   -   Seagate Desktop HDD.15 4TB Hard Drive Review Comment Thread (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/storage/61296-seagate-desktop-hdd-15-4tb-hard-drive-review-comment-thread.html)

SKYMTL May 20, 2013 06:39 PM

Seagate Desktop HDD.15 4TB Hard Drive Review Comment Thread
 
Seagate has begun a complete top to bottom refresh of their hard drive lineup and the Desktop HDD.15 4TB is their latest addition. This HDD houses impressive amounts of storage space and even though its 5900RPM speed may be slow by today's standards, performance is actually quite surprising.

Read more here: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...ve-review.html

:thumb:

YoungMan May 21, 2013 02:49 PM

They did an interview about phasing out low rpm drives (green) a while back with Linus Seagate Interview - Barracuda Products & Power of One NCIX Tech Tips - YouTube
Not exactly sure why they would go back low RPM again. The power savings per year for 24/7 usage between the two is ~74cents. Might as well just give it a boost in performance..

enaberif May 21, 2013 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungMan (Post 710229)
They did an interview about phasing out low rpm drives (green) a while back with Linus Seagate Interview - Barracuda Products & Power of One NCIX Tech Tips - YouTube
Not exactly sure why they would go back low RPM again. The power savings per year for 24/7 usage between the two is ~74cents. Might as well just give it a boost in performance..

People don't buy a 4TB drive for speed. They buy them for storage and because of this they still want some decent speed behind the drive. A 4TB storage drive doesn't need to be 7200rpm

AkG May 21, 2013 03:39 PM

They did because they are going to tack on X number of NANC ICs...and make a monster Desktop Hybrid. Why use a 7200rpmer when you have NAND. ;)

SKYMTL May 21, 2013 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungMan (Post 710229)
They did an interview about phasing out low rpm drives (green) a while back with Linus Seagate Interview - Barracuda Products & Power of One NCIX Tech Tips - YouTube
Not exactly sure why they would go back low RPM again. The power savings per year for 24/7 usage between the two is ~74cents. Might as well just give it a boost in performance..

Whoops! :haha:

YoungMan May 21, 2013 07:53 PM

My point is, in the interview, they gave so many reasons as to why having a lower RPM is a bad thing. Like there's absolutely NO good reason for it, and then they do a 180.
It costs pretty much the same, if not less, to put out 7200rpm drives than it is to put out 5900rpm drives.

Considering the drive costs almost $200 after it's all said and done, you sacrifice a decent % of performance to save a few cents per year in electricity costs? The ratio isn't even close at all.

AkG May 22, 2013 06:11 AM

I understand exactly what you are saying and for the most part do agree.

Couple things to remeber though, Seagate - like WD - are simplifying their parts channel and models. Seagate is going to be taking Hybrids seriously. For Hybrids a 7200rpm drive is not really needed (IF they use enough NAND...which was the issue I had with their laptop hybrid model). To do 7200rpm 4TB desktop model and a 5900 Hybrid model would require two mfg'ering lines. Whereas 'now' they only need one. Build the Drive....and simply attach a different PCB to it to change it from a standalone HDD into a Hybrid. This keeps costs down. And Yes while this drive is 2bills...that is how much a 3TB cost peeps when 3TB was the flagship...so its only 2Bill for a 4TB drive. That in one gen is a reduction from $66 a TB to $50 a TB.

ALSO this drive is dead silent and even under random loads barely makes a peep, chirp or anything. When I first powered it on...I was worried that it was working...its that silent.

Taken as awhole I wouldnt pick it for an OS (its not a 'bad' choice...just that I use SSDs exclusively), but for data its a very good choice.

YMMV

EmptyMellon May 24, 2013 12:50 AM

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the reason for using Vista instead of Windows 7 for the boot time HDD tests?

SKYMTL May 24, 2013 05:19 AM

Vista is extremely slow starting. If a system boots quickly under Vista, performance under Win7 will be even better. It's simply a worst case scenario.

EmptyMellon May 24, 2013 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL (Post 710711)
Vista is extremely slow starting. If a system boots quickly under Vista, performance under Win7 will be even better. It's simply a worst case scenario.

Without the intension of being a smartass, why use a slower HDD on a Vista boot test and a faster SSD on a W7? [If this was answered somewhere else please do provide the link.] However, for comparison between the HDD to SSD reviews, I think, it would be nice to see the relative difference of actual boot times, as the HDD's relate to SSD's times, under the same scenario.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 AM.