1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

7200.12 500gb vs caviar black 500gb

Discussion in 'Storage' started by JanJan, Jan 24, 2010.

  1. JanJan

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    504 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    So what are your thoughts? I heard that the Seagate drive is faster but the Caviar Black has 32mb cache. Does that really matter tho?
     
  2. Loosenut

    Loosenut

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    848 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    169
    Location:
    Montreal, Qc. Canada
    Not being a Seagate fan, I wouldn't know. See my system specs.

    32Mb cache is nice but when in RAID0... :rockout:
     
  3. zithe

    zithe

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,091 (1.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    North Chili, NY
    The seagate 500gbs get like 130 read average. In Raid0, they're amazing.
     
  4. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,886 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,840
    Go with the cheaper one, you won't notice a difference between the two.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  5. mlee49

    mlee49

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,501 (3.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,108
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Both are great drives, price and warranty should be larger factors since preformance differences are so minute.
     
  6. JanJan

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    504 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    i will be buying from buy.com
    seagate is $60 shipped and caviar is $66 shipped. Caviar has 5 years warranty tho. Hmmm *pulling hair*
     
  7. Soylent Joe

    Soylent Joe New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,408 (1.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    680
    Location:
    Brunswick, GA
    Similar/same performance, close price, I'd go with the WD before the SG anyday.
     
  8. lisburnni New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Messages:
    179 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    2x 7200.12 500gb in raid 0 , ICH9R , 32kb Stripe p35T DQ6

    [​IMG][/URL][/IMG]
     
  9. JanJan

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    504 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    hey about if I throw in a samsung f3 500gb? I heard it being the fastest. Sorry for keep asking, I know I wont notice the difference but we all have the feel to use the best :)
     
  10. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,886 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,840
    I'd go with the Seagate and save the $6, in 3 years 500GB will be nothing, and probably won't be worth the hassle to even RMA the drive...
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  11. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,870 (3.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,410
    The access time in the 7200.12 Seagate usually is a put-off, making the WD faster overall... It depends on what you do though... If access time is less important and speed is more important, maybe the Seagate would be better for you, but in overall, the caviar black is better, so IMO go with the caviar black

    btw, the reason for the speed increase for the Seagate is that is a 1 platter drive, vs 2 platters for WD, but the access time suffered :(
     
  12. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,886 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,840
    Average Seek Time on the WD Black 500GB is 4.2ms, average seek time on the Seagate 7200.11 500GB is 4.12ms...

    You really won't notice the difference.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  13. JanJan

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    504 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    thanks guys. Ill wait for response from ebay guy if I can go through with the F3 500gb, if not then I guess Ill go with the Seagate.

    btw, I have a WD 250gb WD2500JS right now, older model but still 7200rpm. It has 2 partition,1for os and program and other one for music and movies.

    After I got my new 500gb, what is the best course of action to take? (like use what drive for what, partition etc.)
     
  14. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,870 (3.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,410
    Access time varies between 14.7 and 16.6 ms

    vs

    12.5ms for the Caviar black... HUGE difference

    IMHO you should go with the Caviar Black
     
  15. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,886 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,840
    BS, my 5900RPM LP drives get 13 ms access times, your trying to say the 7200RPM 7200.11 drive has worse access times...I think not...
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  16. zithe

    zithe

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,091 (1.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    North Chili, NY
    HDTach is not going to tell you your average latencies. It's a test that lasts for a few minutes and it's all a pre-set series of commands to make it hard for your drive. HDTach is probably more intensive than anything you're going to be doing 24/7.
     
  17. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,870 (3.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,410
    7200.12 has worse access times...

    you probably meant 5400rpm btw

    Tom's Hardware says so for access times

    and btw, do a bit of research and you'll quickly see that the 7200.12 has horrible access time
     
  18. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,870 (3.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,410
    [​IMG]

     
  19. zithe

    zithe

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,091 (1.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    North Chili, NY
    Every other bench in the review shows the Seagate coming out on top. Don't know much about drives, though. It seems throughout the rest of it that the seagate is faster.
     
  20. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,886 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,840
    Yeah, and I'll believe Tom's reviews...well never...:laugh:

    And even if the Black gives better access times, again, you will not notice the difference. The Black could be 5 ms faster, and the difference would be invisable.

    And no, I did not mean 5400RPM, with a bit of research you would have seen that.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  21. zithe

    zithe

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,091 (1.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    North Chili, NY
    It has 15% of a second lower access time, but is also 10-20% faster overall. Seems like it really wouldn't be any different.
     
  22. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,870 (3.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,410
    Yes, I am not denying that it is usually faster MB/s wise, but that is no good if the access time sucks... sure it reads fast, but if it take forever to find what it wants to read...

    So overall the Caviar black is better, but in some situations, the Seagate will destroy the Caviar Black

    that chart and quote is from tech report (though i have no idea if they are good)

    yea I just saw those 5900rpm drives...

    Access time is the thing you NOTICE ALOT!

    SSDs sometimes have worse write speeds by alot and almost on par with HDs read speeds, yet feel a heck of alot faster because of their 0.1 or 0.2ms Access time
     
  23. Polaris573

    Polaris573 Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,281 (1.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    718
    Location:
    Little Rock, USA
    Maybe it depends on the drive but my 7200.12 has 32 MB cache.
     
  24. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,886 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,840
    Actually, in pretty much every situation the Seagate will be faster, but again the difference would be invisable.

    Access time, especilly small difference that we are talking about, doesn't make a difference.

    I've yet to see an SSD with slower writes than even the fastest SATA hard drive, and the same goes for Reads. Yes, in the case of SSDs, the access time makes a difference, but we are talking about next to 0 ms access times, that is a noticeable difference, but it takes that amount of difference for there to actually be a really noticeable difference.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2010
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  25. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,870 (3.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,410
    But the 500gb has 16mb ;) Yours the 1tb, which has 32mb
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page