Seagate 7200.9
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Seagate 7200.9
According to someone at Storage Review, they’re in stock already. Is anyone using them? Does Seagate still have a dispute with AAM?
If you'll excuse quoting from a message in the thread over at Anandtech, a Seagate *presales* person stated:
That said, I want some, but will probably settle for the 400GB models (in a NAS box, safely away from human ears) because we need them now, not in x months.
Hence, I would be cautious about claimed availability by retailers. Seagate has historically been a bit slow is releasing brand-new new models into the distribution channels after announcements.Presales has been advised that these drives would be out possibly late
November or early December. However, it is subject to change. We hope to
see them soon. We are tentatively expecting it during Seagate's fiscal
year 2006.
That said, I want some, but will probably settle for the 400GB models (in a NAS box, safely away from human ears) because we need them now, not in x months.
Well.. the discussion in that thread on StorageReview brings up a point that could make 7200.9 interesting. There will be 1 platter variants (160 and 80 Gb). All 7200.8 models had at least 2 platters.
Would make up for the disappointment I had when the 100Gb/platter HDs started showing up but all were at least 2 platters. I dont know the technical reason for this but it seems like all manufacturers did the same thing with the 100gb/platter models. Perhaps its a totally different technique from what they used before. It seems like Seagate is going back to the old method. Anyone know if the 'older method' makes any difference noise-wise?
Would make up for the disappointment I had when the 100Gb/platter HDs started showing up but all were at least 2 platters. I dont know the technical reason for this but it seems like all manufacturers did the same thing with the 100gb/platter models. Perhaps its a totally different technique from what they used before. It seems like Seagate is going back to the old method. Anyone know if the 'older method' makes any difference noise-wise?
Introducing Seagate's 7200.9: The New Generation
Seagate is also reporting a lower sound rating between 25-28 decibels while the drives are idle, and about 28-32 decibels while the drives are seeking for data. The lowest amount of sound audible by human ears is 26 decibels, so the idle noise output is borderline inaudible to our ears. Combine this with the hum of case and heat sink fans, and the hard drive is basically silent.
That quote from Anandtech, was describing the seagate chart of Sound power Level. Im not sure if Sound Power Level is comparable to Sound Pressure Level numerically, although they are two different entitities.Tzeb wrote:Introducing Seagate's 7200.9: The New GenerationSeagate is also reporting a lower sound rating between 25-28 decibels while the drives are idle, and about 28-32 decibels while the drives are seeking for data. The lowest amount of sound audible by human ears is 26 decibels, so the idle noise output is borderline inaudible to our ears. Combine this with the hum of case and heat sink fans, and the hard drive is basically silent.
-
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:02 pm
Earlier today, I sent the author an email regarding why he was wrong and telling him that he could check with Mike if he doesn't believe me. Lets hope he listens to my advice. Otherwise quite a few people will think you can translate decibels into bels and back.rpsgc wrote:LOL ? That's just BS to me.The lowest amount of sound audible by human ears is 26 decibels
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:19 am
- Location: Jamestown NY USA
- Contact:
As Tiamat mentioned, that's a sound power level, which is a sum of all acoustic noise emitted by a source. It's something like measuring the pressure at a lot of different points, and figuring out the total amount of force applied from the measurements. I'd guess there's no way to compute pressure from power without knowing the environment due to multipath effects, but there's no way a sound pressure at any given point can be higher than sound power. Unless, perhaps, it was resonating with some other sound, but that would be another environment-specific issue.rpsgc wrote:LOL ? That's just BS to me.The lowest amount of sound audible by human ears is 26 decibels
I don't have enough knowledge to comment on the accuracy of the 26 dB(A) figure, though.
-
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:02 pm
I use few 7200.7 & 7200.8 and I must say it is disaster. They are reliable, but that off-line buzzing self-dianostic is unacceptable for me. I need to buy some new 160GB or 250GB but I don't know if I should wait for 7200.9 or should I just switch to much quieter Samsungs.
I can't believe that Barracuda IV and 7200.x is from the same company. Someone is making bad decisions there. I would be very happy to pay extra money to have better/silent drive from my beloved Seagate but it seems Seagate don't need such customers like me anymore.
I can't believe that Barracuda IV and 7200.x is from the same company. Someone is making bad decisions there. I would be very happy to pay extra money to have better/silent drive from my beloved Seagate but it seems Seagate don't need such customers like me anymore.
Blame whoever originally thought it was a good idea to refer to sound power in terms of bels instead of watts when dealing with electronics.Shining Arcanine wrote:Otherwise quite a few people will think you can translate decibels into bels and back.
Obviously the author screwed up pretty bad, but in most cases when people refer to x dB as x/10 bels, it's not because they're mistaken or trying to deceive; decibels are just a more convenient unit for human purposes. I remember getting into a big stupid argument with MikeC a while back because he assumed I didn't know what the difference between sound intensity (pressure) and power was (I did) and because I really had no idea wtf his problem was until I noticed he kept referring to power as bels for some reason.
That figure is just silly though. If it's referring to power, well, 100 bels would be inaudible if it were buried in a mile of concrete (or too high/low for humans). If that's intensity, 0dB is by definition the lowest "amount of sound audible by human ears", ie 1x10^-12 W/m^2.
I have got a few 80GB PATA 7200.9's.
They are quick thanks to the 160GB per platter density, and is using one side, and one head. the seeks are not that fast, but data transfer rate starts at 75MB per second. That was not a typo.!!!
As far as the noise is concerned, it sounds very similar to the 7200.7 80GB PATA drives, possibly being a little quiter, however I havent had the chance to have a good listen, with a quiet PC. There is no more vibration than a good 7200.7, and I couldnt feel any seek induced vibration either.
The drives were all made in China, which has made all of the quitest Seagate 7200.7's I have encountered.
All in all, this drive would be at home in my PC if I didnt need lots of storage and were on a budget. I dont know how the larger drives, or SATA drives compare.
Looking forward to a review by SPCR, ideally more than one sample (i.e. a SATA and a PATA, and different amounts of platters).
Andy
They are quick thanks to the 160GB per platter density, and is using one side, and one head. the seeks are not that fast, but data transfer rate starts at 75MB per second. That was not a typo.!!!
As far as the noise is concerned, it sounds very similar to the 7200.7 80GB PATA drives, possibly being a little quiter, however I havent had the chance to have a good listen, with a quiet PC. There is no more vibration than a good 7200.7, and I couldnt feel any seek induced vibration either.
The drives were all made in China, which has made all of the quitest Seagate 7200.7's I have encountered.
All in all, this drive would be at home in my PC if I didnt need lots of storage and were on a budget. I dont know how the larger drives, or SATA drives compare.
Looking forward to a review by SPCR, ideally more than one sample (i.e. a SATA and a PATA, and different amounts of platters).
Andy
andyb wrote:I have got a few 80GB PATA 7200.9's.
They are quick thanks to the 160GB per platter density, and is using one side, and one head. the seeks are not that fast, but data transfer rate starts at 75MB per second. That was not a typo.!!!
As far as the noise is concerned, it sounds very similar to the 7200.7 80GB PATA drives, possibly being a little quiter, however I havent had the chance to have a good listen, with a quiet PC. There is no more vibration than a good 7200.7, and I couldnt feel any seek induced vibration either.
The drives were all made in China, which has made all of the quitest Seagate 7200.7's I have encountered.
All in all, this drive would be at home in my PC if I didnt need lots of storage and were on a budget. I dont know how the larger drives, or SATA drives compare.
Looking forward to a review by SPCR, ideally more than one sample (i.e. a SATA and a PATA, and different amounts of platters).
Andy
What about the infamous 'patrol seeks' as some have referred to them as?
I think the reason they don't make quiet drives anymore is because none of the other drives are all that loud now. Before, having the lowest noise ratings was probably useful for getting people to switch from much noisier drives, and for assuring people that having multiple seagates or adding a seagate in addition to whatever drive they have won't drive them insane.tkirmuc wrote:Someone is making bad decisions there. I would be very happy to pay extra money to have better/silent drive from my beloved Seagate but it seems Seagate don't need such customers like me anymore.
I am looking for information on the 160GB Seagate 7200.9 and hoping SPCR will review the dive.
At least one person in the forum has had a bad experience with the single platter 160GB model. Stating it is very loud with a audible wine.
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewto ... light=7200
I hope that this users experience is an exception to the rule, but we need more feedback.
At least one person in the forum has had a bad experience with the single platter 160GB model. Stating it is very loud with a audible wine.
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewto ... light=7200
I hope that this users experience is an exception to the rule, but we need more feedback.
AnandTech 7200.9 500GB review:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=2577&p=1
AnandTech Thermal & Acoustics stats:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... =2577&p=14
Tech sheet:
http://mcn.oops.jp/wiki/index.php?HDD%2 ... a%207200.9
I wonder why they don’t use 160GB platters throughout the range?
Sooty's Silent Seagate Survey – please add your feedback for 7200.7/8/9 drives: http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=26207
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=2577&p=1
AnandTech Thermal & Acoustics stats:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... =2577&p=14
Tech sheet:
http://mcn.oops.jp/wiki/index.php?HDD%2 ... a%207200.9
I wonder why they don’t use 160GB platters throughout the range?
Sooty's Silent Seagate Survey – please add your feedback for 7200.7/8/9 drives: http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=26207
-
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 7:57 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
Well they cant use the 160's because they simply dont add up to the correct ammount of space.Sooty wrote:AnandTech 7200.9 500GB review:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=2577&p=1
AnandTech Thermal & Acoustics stats:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... =2577&p=14
Tech sheet:
http://mcn.oops.jp/wiki/index.php?HDD%2 ... a%207200.9
I wonder why they don’t use 160GB platters throughout the range?
Sooty's Silent Seagate Survey – please add your feedback for 7200.7/8/9 drives: http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=26207
I post mostly on AT, so i know their reviews are excellent. However, i dont know about their noise reviews. They report it as the lowest idle noise, but a moderately noisey seek.
Therefore i find it hard to believe that the 500gig model with what 4 platters and IIRC 8 heads, is louder and cooler than a 160gig model with 1 platter and 2 heads. Just seems pretty strange, not to discredit that person who posted, but the review does appear to be against him in all accounts.
-Kevin