Hitachi vs. Western Digital vs. Seagate: A Battle of the Mammoths
by Purav Sanghani on December 2, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Real World Tests - Multitasking Performance
To provide a real world example of multitasking, we run Outlook and import 450MB of emails into an account. We then measure the time that it takes our benchmarking utility to zip a single 300MB file. To compare our results, we calculate the difference between the multitasked process and the single task file zip process.
To provide a real world example of multitasking, we run Outlook and import 450MB of emails into an account. We then measure the time that it takes our benchmarking utility to zip a single 300MB file. To compare our results, we calculate the difference between the multitasked process and the single task file zip process.
| Outlook + Zip a 300MB File Within Drive | |||
| Multitasked | File Zip Only | % Difference | |
| Seagate 7200.9 500GB, 16MB, 3.0GB/sec | 69.215 | 59.707 | 15.9% |
| Hitachi 7K500, 16MB, 3.0GB/sec | 70.512 | 62.156 | 13.4% |
| Western Digital WD1600JS | 69.25 | 61.443 | 12.7% |
The WD4000YR looks like it performs the best out of the three while running multiple tasks but only by a second or two. It zips a 300MB file while importing emails in Outlook about 12.7% slower than just performing the file zip operation on its own while the Hitachi and Seagate drives handle this task 13.4-15.9% slower.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
bjacobson - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
Anandtech is such a great site. Seems like every other day theres a new benchmark or review of some sort. Far more stuff comes out from AT than many other tech sites. Thanks Anand.johnsonx - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
Anandtech does have more new articles per week than most sites, aside from THG. Unlike THG though, Anandtech's articles are quite well thought out, written, and supported. THG's flood of articles every week is more like a bad case of the $hits.Visual - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
AT, it might be good to include a link to your 7200.9 article ( The so-called mouth-watering failure, http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=25...">http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=25... ) and maybe if you've done separate reviews for the other drives link them too in the first page of this one.And this reminds me, we haven't yet seen a review of the highest-density 7200.9, the 160GB model. Nor the 133gb/platter 400gb drive :/
But yeah I know I shouldn't complain, I should just google for reviews by other sites.
PuravSanghani - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
We are currently working on getting our hands on a 160GB 7200.9 unit with the 160GB platters; hopefully within the next month or so.Regards,
Purav
Zar0n - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
Thanx 4 the review, but in the last benchmark, acoustics, u should remove the legend to the bottom so that the bars expanded, and it's easy to see the difference between all drives.Waiting for Maxtor DiamondMax 11 to chose the best drive :)
Slaimus - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
It is fairly uncommon for HD manufacturers to release updated firmware after the fact, but that might be what the other drives need.irev210 - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
firmware aint gunna help these drives.They are all very fast drives... just that the 400gb wd stands out because of its raptor heritage.
irev210 - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
From what I read at storage review, the 400gb western digital has the same chipset/technology as the 10k raptor, just with 100gb plattersx4. That is why you see such high I/O scores.I picked up two 400gb RE's (raid edition) to back up my data in a 400x2 raid 1. I couldnt be more pleased with the price/performance. The 400gb drives boast a 1.2 million hours MTBF, which seems pretty impressive for such an inexpensive drive. The motor looks rather large compared to other units, but i was too chicken to take apart my new drives to inspect.
What really bothers me is that anandtech rounded up the T7k250gb 160gb version which uses different platters than the T7k250 250gb. The 250gb uses 2x125gb platters which greatly improves performance over the 160gb.
For me, I use the T7k250 250gbx2 in a raid0 SATA 3.0gb/sec with the option of adding 2 more for much better performance and space in a raid0
for data, I use 400gbx2 raid 1
the best part is, I have lots of room to grow. I can grow to a 1tb main array and a 800gb data array.
I hope to see anandtech tackle some more hard drives! The 400gb western digital is an absolute STEAL at the price.
karioskasra - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
How would the WD perform in RAID1 when compared vs the other drives in RAID1? You hinted at it possibly being slower when striped, but how big is the difference? Does it maintain the lead over the other two when striped, or is it outperformed?Cygni - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
Makes me chuckle that a 1.5Gbps drive dominated the 3.0's. Not a surprise at all. ATA133 isnt even maxed out by these drives, let alone a SATA150 connection. Kinda reminds me of AGP... or PCI... or pretty much most of the standards these days getting replaced by "better faster must have!" standards that cost the end user money and offer no real improvement in performance.Hey, gotta keep selling boards, i guess.