Seagate 7200.11 vs. Samsung F1

[CarolinaKSU]

Well my little 500gb WD is maxed out and I want to build a raid0 array for the obvious performance improvments. However, I am torn between two Samsung F1s or Seagate 7200.11s.. input anyone??

[newtekie1]

I would go with the seagate. Both are going to give you pretty much identical performance, but IMO, Seagate makes better quality drives.

[DanishDevil]

Go with whichever costs you less. I unfortunately dropped about $200 on the Seagate 750GB and a week later they had the Samsungs for $115 :banghead:

[CarolinaKSU]

Of course luck would have it, same price on newegg.. :roll:

Samsung (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152100)

Seagate (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148298)

Also interesting to note that neither of these get good reviews on there.. Of course we all know better. :pimp:

[wolf2009]

WD SE16 640 GB drive is better than both of them . its faster and quiet and uses less power .

[FatForester]

I'm looking to buy the Samsung F1 750gb, and it's $110 bucks at ZipZoomFly.

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10007193

[PVTCaboose1337]

I vote for the Seagate if those are your two options. I have always been a WD guy though.

[mikek75]

I just bought a Samsung Spinpoint F1 500GB two days ago, very pleased with it so far. Vista 64 filled my little 80GB Maxtor in no time so it was necessary, LOL. Has improved my system overall, is very quiet and cost £47 (about $94) including 17.5% Value added tax. No regrets, at the end of the day ANY manufacturer has failures, nature of the beast.

[panchoman]

go with the samsung, it out performs the seagate and uses less power etc

[mikek75]

Cheers Panchoman, nice to know I made a good choice for a change!

[panchoman]

im suprised that seagate is winning in this thread, in other threads, samsung wins hands down..

btw more info on the f1 is here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-overtakes-a-bang,1730.html

[lemonadesoda]

I've always been a seagate guy... after failed hitachi, ibms and maxtors. I never had a WD drive fail, but the one I had until recently was slow. The seagates WERE the best (for the last 3-5 years or so). However, I switched to Samsung F1 and am not disappointed. They are: very fast, very quiet, run cool, and lower power consumption. Full recommendation from me.

The WD drives have got a lot better too. But IMO the F1's are still better. And I dont like the way "Green power" jumps onto the eco-bandwagon, but isnt really any more eco friendly that competitors.

I agree with pancho, every review I've seen has F1's the winner *on average*. There may occasionally be ONE benchmark that is better, but across all benchmarks, they win. IF you are considering seagate still, then my tip is *NOT* the 7200.11 but the DB35.3 or DB35.4. They are quieter, cooler and designed for enterprise, RAID and video. Much better than 7200.11, but a bit more expensive.

[panchoman]

finnally got tom's to work:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/3-5-hard-drive-charts/average-read-transfer-performance,658.html?p=1826%2C1782
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/3-5-hard-drive-charts/average-writetransfer-performance,659.html?p=1826%2C1782
etc.

[CarolinaKSU]

IF you are considering seagate still, then my tip is *NOT* the 7200.11 but the DB35.3 or DB35.4.

Got a link? I tried looking around and couldnt find any for sale, just that they were announced.

[panchoman]

cant find db drives, do you mean sv or es?

[lemonadesoda]

I just bought a IDE DB35.3 500GB for my MusicCAST to replace the original WD1600 160MB.

The difference was amazing. After ripping a few CDs the MusicCAST got hot to the touch. With the new DB35.3, it is cool to the touch. Not very scientific. But very noticable.

What is your 10-20?

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/consumer_electronics/db35_series/db35_series_7200.4/

[wolf2009]

take a look at this review (http://techreport.com/articles.x/14380/6)

spinpoint f1 is faster than seagate , and many times wd se16 640 gb is faster than both.

[lemonadesoda]

Thats an interesting review. The WD SE16 640GB is *fast*. Nice. But the speed is achieved through a new, higher, data density. 320GB rather than 250GB per platter. That's impressive. But it also means we can expect Seagate and Samsung to release 320GB platters soon, and they will be top. But quite right... TODAY the WD SE16 seems the fastest. Worth considering.

[DanishDevil]

32mb cache really helps though. I want a 320GB platter 32mb cache drive.

[FatForester]

Samsung uses 334gb platters in their 1TB drive, and it has 32mb cache, so there ya go Danish! As far as speed vs. capacity, the WD 640GB 2-platter is 5 dollars more (at newegg) than the Samsung F1 750GB 3 platter at ZipZoomFly. It all just depends on what your priorities are.

[niko084]

Samsung F1's are nice but the WD RE2's are where the performance is really at right now.
7200.11's are not too great, lots of them are failing, and they are pretty slow.

[wolf2009]

Samsung uses 334gb platters in their 1TB drive, and it has 32mb cache, so there ya go Danish! As far as speed vs. capacity, the WD 640GB 2-platter is 5 dollars more (at newegg) than the Samsung F1 750GB 3 platter at ZipZoomFly. It all just depends on what your priorities are.

ya samsung f1 750mb drive also has 3 platters , same as their 1 tb drive , but has some GB deactivated on the third platter.

[FatForester]

ya samsung f1 750mb drive also has 3 platters , same as their 1 tb drive , but has some GB deactivated on the third platter.

That's true, I didn't know if that was worth mentioning or not.

[wolf2009]

That's true, I didn't know if that was worth mentioning or not.

ultimately it consumes more power , but overall its a nice drive .

[CarolinaKSU]

Well, I decided to take the plunge and go with the Samsung F1 750GB ( x2 of course). I cant wait to put them in a RAID and let those puppies scream..

[Paulieg]

I've been running an F1 for 2 months. It is the quickest, quietest, and coolest drive I've ever owned..hands down, and I've owned 50+ drives over the last 5 years.

[oli_ramsay]

I also own an F1 and it's great especially 750 GB for only £70.

However the fastest drive I've owned it this one :cool:

http://img.techpowerup.org/080524/HDTune_Benchmark_SuperSpeed_LLCRAM_Disk.png

[DanishDevil]

That's a lie.

[philbrown23]

+1

[wolf2009]

That's a lie.

it may be GIGABYTE's i-RAM drive . not sure though . i think only that drive has crazy speeds like this.

[mullered07]

it may be GIGABYTE's i-RAM drive . not sure though . i think only that drive has crazy speeds like this.

it is a ramdrive and its not a lie, its just a software program that can use ram as a drive to run programs from similar to the i-drive but done in software, so its not a lie.

back on topic i would go with the wd SE16 640gb and will be myself as soon as i find one in the UK at a good price

[oli_ramsay]

hehe, it's no lie!

I allocated 1 GB of my RAM to be used as a HDD. Was gonna use it as opera's internet cache but the software has stopped working for some reason :confused:

[wolf2009]

hehe, it's no lie!

I allocated 1 GB of my RAM to be used as a HDD. Was gonna use it as opera's internet cache but the software has stopped working for some reason :confused:

wat soft is it ?

so does this mean if i get 4 GB more RAM to have 8 GB total , i can allocate some GB of RAM to be used as HDD ?

[oli_ramsay]

software is here: http://www.superspeed.com/download/trialversions.php

yea you can allocate as much as you want

It's just a matter of what can you put on the HD to speed things up. Internet cache is the only thing that I can think of.

[largon]

ya samsung f1 750mb drive also has 3 platters , same as their 1 tb drive , but has some GB deactivated on the third platter.Nope.
It is known 750GB F1 has lower density platters (250GB/platter) that perform worse than those on the 1TB model (320GB/platter).

[wolf2009]

Nope.
It is known 750GB F1 has lower density platters (250GB/platter) that perform worse than those on the 1TB model (320GB/platter).

Nope ur wrong .

750 GB Spinpoint F1 has the same 3 x 334 GB platters as the 1 TB Spinpoint F1 .

Given its use of 334GB platters, you would think Samsung would offer two additional F1 variants to accompany the terabyte model: a 334GB model using a single platter and a two-platter model with 668GB of capacity. And you would be wrong. Instead, Samsung is sticking to the industry-standard capacities embraced by its competitors, extending the F1 down to 750, 500, and 320GB. It's hard to see the rationale behind such a move. Those lower capacities leave a respective 250, 168, and 14GB of unused platter capacity on the table, which strikes us as unnecessarily wasteful.

Thats what techreport has to say on the first page in this review (http://techreport.com/articles.x/14200)

[oli_ramsay]

It seems crazy to use 3 x 334GB platters on 750GB drives and disabling 250GB. They should just bring out single platter 333GB two platter 666GB and 3 platter 1TB drives.

[farlex85]

Thats why scratch em all and go for the se16 640. Uses 2 platters, and has tested faster than either, and in some cases faster than the raptor.

[wolf2009]

It seems crazy to use 3 x 334GB platters on 750GB drives and disabling 250GB. They should just bring out single platter 333GB two platter 666GB and 3 platter 1TB drives.

ya it seems crazy , but point to note is that is there any hack to enable that extra 250GB and get a 1 TB drive for the price of 750GB ?

[DanishDevil]

hehe, it's no lie!

I allocated 1 GB of my RAM to be used as a HDD. Was gonna use it as opera's internet cache but the software has stopped working for some reason :confused:

It's not a drive. Hence the lie.

[largon]

Nope ur wrong .

750 GB Spinpoint F1 has the same 3 x 334 GB platters as the 1 TB Spinpoint F1 .


Thats what techreport has to say on the first page in this review (http://techreport.com/articles.x/14200)This (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2866347&postcount=128) is how 334GB platters perform.
And this (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2869703&postcount=140) is how F1 750GB performs. Obviously techreport is clueless as 750GB has 250GB platters.

[oli_ramsay]

It's not a drive. Hence the lie.

meh

[CarolinaKSU]

edit: I completey messed up my math and 250 per GB is accurate. However, I have already made my purchase and I am extremely excited because the performance of these HDDs is amazing, I can't wait to get them in Raid 0!