Maybe it's just me, but I'm hoping that Tom's Hardware does an in-depth review of this new product. I am really looking forward to seeing how this drive does in a 'high end gaming rig'...or how it stacks up to the 7200.12 drive and other higher end mechanical disk drives, even SSD's... Speaking of which, why hasn't Tom's Hardware done a review on the Seagate 7200.12 HDD's yet?
Who uses bels for sound level anymore? 23 decibels and 25 decibels would be much more appropriate. I guess marketing won out on that one.
In any case, I'm sure this is a market that needs to be addressed. Although I was sucked in by the headline, I really don't care much about the content. No revolutionary HDD tech going on here except for video surveillance technology.
Seems to me that Blue-Ray's flop in the tech industry and SSD's Shakespeare worthy 'delay' (think Falstaff) in development of capacity and price reductions is breathing new life into what was a dying (weakening at the very least) hard drive industry. Seagate may have a reason to charge $175+ for a 1Tb hard drive again.. tee-hee (current street price is about $90).
How will they resolve the "heat assist" perpendicular hard drive technology with 24/7/365 capability.. last recent memory puts 2+tb capacity drives at odds with ultra large MTBF, low heat, high thermal tolerance and low acoustical output-- but I digress.
I'm still waiting (with bated breath) for a 750gb 7200rpm 2.5" laptop hard drive to materialize with similar characteristics.
Why do smaller drives have smaller cache? Cache is used to speed-up reads and writes. It's not like a smaller drive will be used less often than a larger one, especially not for streaming video applications.
I'm sure I've seen a review here that covers cache size (I think 16MB was sufficient), but really, for a drive geared at storing streaming video, capacity is only how much history is stored, not how much the drive is accessed. Doesn't seem logical to use different cache sizes.
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]Why do smaller drives have smaller cache? Cache is used to speed-up reads and writes. It's not like a smaller drive will be used less often than a larger one, especially not for streaming video applications. I'm sure I've seen a review here that covers cache size (I think 16MB was sufficient), but really, for a drive geared at storing streaming video, capacity is only how much history is stored, not how much the drive is accessed. Doesn't seem logical to use different cache sizes.[/citation]
I often wondered this myself... Why not have 32mb cache in all the drives?
It takes longer to traverse a larger cache, so if you buy a smaller drive the partial assumption is you will be doing smaller file transfers in which a smaller cache is faster for cache hits. It also has to do with price point, smaller capacity, smaller profit, so using less ram helps keep the revenue higher.
Also note that currently ALL had drive manufactures are having issues with 2TB. The current best head/media combo (something like TDK/fujitsu)with a marvel channel is having difficulty in signal to noise ratios at 2TB densities. The yield for 4 platter 8 head drives is very low, making it not feasible to ship. Two head 1 disc on the other hand has much higher yields and that's why the 7200.12 is a one disc 2 head drive that is shipping, but a 4 disc model of the same density is not shipping. Until there is a break through in head/media/channel technology we will most likely not see large volumes on 2TB drives. The other options are, slower spin speed with higher over sample (WD uses this currently among other things) or moving to a larger sector size than 512 bytes to increase format efficiency.
I fail to see the point in this piece of news?
Other than 140MB/sec I don't see anything nextgen about it. Looks to be an old maxtor drive (maxtor discount drive form factor anyway) with a specialized firmware. Also the stats are pretty .... stock. Most WD drives have AFR of under 0.8% so that can't be it. All manufacturers provide drives with that spindle speed, and many provide low power variants. I bet if WD would provide a similar specialized firmware for their wd20eads it'd beat this drive in all specs. Essentially the only thing these 3 seagate models provide is a firmware with different error handling and different storage algorithms....
And how important is it anyway? I've only seen one harddrive in a surveillance system break, and it was a regular old 5400rpm ide drive many years ago. The systems we have now, according to my knowledge, run on ordinary 24/7 drives and seem to cope just fine.