Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

Three Generations Compared: Why Storage Density Matters

by

Increased data density typically results in better throughput, but it also allows hard drive makers to create drives that require fewer physical components to reach popular capacity points. The effect is more value and lower cost for the end-user. After multiple analyses with Samsung drives in 2009, we grabbed the last three generations of Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 drives to look at the effects of recent progress. Get ready to see the new Deskstar 7K1000.C do battle with the 7K1000.B and the original 7K1000.

500 GB per Platter

Competing hard drives, such as the Western Digital Caviar Black and Green series, have already been utilizing similar storage densities, cramming 500GB onto a single 3.5” platter. Samsung’s Spinpoint F3 and the Seagate Barracuda XT are other examples. However, these product families cover the full capacity range from 160GB or 250GB entry-level drives up to 2TB capacity points. Hitachi’s naming approach is different from its peers because the "1000" in the 7K1000 family notes a 1TB capacity.

Which is the Better Strategy?

Samsung and WD each offer two product lines that cover all capacity points, but differ in positioning. There are green drives that spin at 5,400 RPM and performance drives at 7,200 RPM. Typically, there's even a third line with drives qualified and validated for 24x7 server applications. Do we really need so many options? Yes and no. Hard drive makers feel it's necessary to address all market segments. Geeks can find their perfect hard drives from the Barracuda, Caviar, Deskstar, Spinpoint, and Black, Green, EG, LP, or XT models. More mainstream consumers are likely to find this all bewildering, which might explain why Seagate has been reducing its variety, offering the Barracuda XT at 2TB and 7200.12 at 1TB only.

While Hitachi has a product line that offers high capacity SATA storage for business environments, it lacks a power-efficient product line at lower RPMs. Instead, the high-capacity drives are based on a massive five-platter design. All mainstream Hitachi drives, however, originate from a different product line that has so far been limited to 1TB. Unbelievably for many enthusiasts, most 3.5” hard drives sold today are still below this capacity point.

Going from the five-platter 7K1000 to the three-platter 7K1000.B introduced a 20% boost in performance while similarly increasing efficiency. Can the two-platter 7K1000.C continue to improve along these lines?

Share:
5
Comments
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
goxon 01/03/2010 05:03
Hide
-1+

good test. its well to know that speed rise up with generations

kyzar 01/03/2010 18:24
Hide
-0+

"All mainstream Hitachi drives, however, originate from a different product line that has so far been limited to 1TB. Unbelievably for many enthusiasts, most 3.5” hard drives sold today are still below this capacity point"

Why would I want a 1TB drive on a workstation? The whole idea of a corporate network is that everything gets stored on the... NETWORK. The last thing I want to do is provide 1TB of worthless space per desktop. 80 /160GB is more than enough for what the workstation needs to store - O/S and apps ONLY.

tizz 04/03/2010 11:07
Hide
-0+

kyzar :
" 80 /160GB is more than enough for what the workstation needs to store - O/S and apps ONLY.



Totaly Agree, I've just brought a new 500GB drive... to replace.. MY BOOT DRIVE!?! it's far to much, im wondering how to partition it. 150GB for boot drive, then the rest for the app's i guess... really overkill off space for a boot drive. I have all my files on Raid networked drives.

zsolmanz 05/03/2010 12:10
Hide
-0+

I've had 500Gb for my boot drive for ages. Since I moved all my files onto a RAID 0 array (which turned out to be pointless but oh well), all I've got left is a 32Gb Windows partition on a 500Gb drive. I loaded Ubuntu into another 10Gb of it, but the rest has just sat not being used.

If large primary drives were needed, then SSDs would not be catching on as quickly as they are.

zsolmanz 05/03/2010 12:11
Hide
--1+

I've had 500Gb for my boot drive for ages. Since I moved all my files onto a RAID 0 array (which turned out to be pointless but oh well), all I've got left is a 32Gb Windows partition on a 500Gb drive. I loaded Ubuntu into another 10Gb of it, but the rest has just sat not being used.

If large primary drives were needed, then SSDs would not be catching on as quickly as they are.

Best offers

Newsletters


OK