# Seagate 7200.11 Mystery - Speed Limiting Jumper?



## DanishDevil (Apr 27, 2008)

While tearing down my Cosmos S, I was looking at my Seagate 750GB 7200.11, and noticed this on the label:







I though, hmm.  I flipped the drive over to find this:






I was infuriated.  I grabbed my knife and began to pry that sucker out:






If you own a 7200.11 drive (I'm assuming it's only on the 7200.11's), please post here letting us know your model number and whether or not you have a jumped installed on the "Limit to 1.5Gb/s Operation" area.

I plan to bench this drive with the jumper in both positions to see if there's a difference.

EDIT: Found somebody who already did this, and there was no performance gain.  Makes perfect sense, because this HDD isn't fully utilizing SATA 1.5Gb/s.

Did they do this for compatibility?


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2008)

Yes, they do it for compatibility since SATA II devices are supposed to be backwards compatible with SATA I, interface wise. But how significant is the jump from 1.5 Gb/s to 3 Gb/s for today's 7200 rpm drives in terms of performance?


----------



## DanishDevil (Apr 27, 2008)

It should be insignificant for anything but an SAS, Fiber, or SCSI drive other than possibly the Velociraptor.


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 27, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Yes, they do it for compatibility since SATA II devices are supposed to be backwards compatible with SATA I, interface wise. But how significant is the jump from 150 Gb/s to 300 Gb/s for today's 7200 rpm drives in terms of performance?



^^^ What he said.

But I posted a thread previously (a year or so back) when I felt my drives were operating quite slowly in benchmarks and in general use. I removed the jumpers off both drives and the performance of the drives kicked right up - no bullshit here.


----------



## DanishDevil (Apr 27, 2008)

Hmm...maybe it was a master/slave kinda thing?  That's what they used to be for in the IDE days...

I'll still be happy to test them against each other.


----------



## department76 (Apr 27, 2008)

pretty sure most sataII drives have that jumper.  does it actually do anything for performance iether way?  i doubt it.  did i remove the jumpers on my drives to supposedly allow 3.0gbps?  of course.

even in RAID 0 i doubt the average sataII drive will not come close to that speed, even in bursts.  just like old ata100 drives actually ran under 30 or 40mbps, tops.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 27, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> Hmm...maybe it was a master/slave kinda thing?  That's what they used to be for in the IDE days...
> 
> I'll still be happy to test them against each other.



No master/slave thing with SATA. Each device has its own channel, just that when it comes to 'boot device priority' with system BIOS, there's a queue in which installed SATA devices are booted from, port 1~x (x= number of ports), unless you change the device order.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 27, 2008)

that speed jumper is for compatibility with Motherboards that have only SATA 150 Standard, thats only if the Motherboard has a problem detecting the Drive or if the system feels sluggish with the 3G option- otherwise leave it alone, if you have a SATA 300 Motherboard make sure its set for 3G or w/e it is.


----------



## Gallatin (Apr 27, 2008)

i saw that "thing" the first day i bought my seagate 320GB 7200.11 sata2. 

P.S. i use knife too. is the most appropriate tool for the job


----------



## ex_reven (Apr 27, 2008)

Man that jumper was a tough bastard to get out. I had to physically remove my hard drives from the system just to see what the hell i was doing lol.


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 4, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Yes, they do it for compatibility since SATA II devices are supposed to be backwards compatible with SATA I, interface wise. But how significant is the jump from 1.5 Gb/s to 3 Gb/s for today's 7200 rpm drives in terms of performance?



Considering that the limitation is not the interface? The max bandwidth of 1.5Gb/s SATA is 187.5MB/s. Show me any HDD with that much transfer rate.

AnandTech only managed to get 123MB/s max transfer rate from the brand new 300GB Western Digtal VelociRaptor: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3303

There's no way that the jumper is limiting performance at all. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to look a little closer at the numbers!  As you stated, it's merely for compatibility with older motherboards.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 4, 2008)

WTF?!!!!!!! i have a WD 250 sata no idea if that jumper is their but i have sata 3.0 slots it better not be ill be sooooo pissed.


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 4, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> WTF?!!!!!!! i have a WD 250 sata no idea if that jumper is their but i have sata 3.0 slots it better not be ill be sooooo pissed.



Why would you be pissed? The reason that HDD manufacturers did that was so that when people put the new HDDs into older motherboards those HDDs actually work. Some older motherboards with original SATA spec have problems.

Really, the interface is not going to limit performance.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 4, 2008)

well i understand compatability but i though sata was supposed to be backwards compatable and since it is i dont know why their would need to be a limit jumper to begin with since thats a mobo manufacturers f up HD makers shouldnt need to adjust protuct specs to comply for a mobo makers fault in product it irritates me because like many of us here we want optimum performance i have a 3gb/s HDD and a 3GB/s slot so thats what i want to run at and like many here i dont care if i can see or feel the diff i want it to run at what i bought it for anything less and its NOT what i bought.


----------



## D4S4 (May 4, 2008)

Same thing with my 7200.10s. Only gain i noticed after removing the jumpers was buffered read test in Everest was able to get over 300MB/s (Raid 0)


----------



## Kursah (May 4, 2008)

I had the same jumper on my 500GB 7200.9....sure my Burst speed increased, but my response and read (HDTach) didn't change at all, and like D4S4 stated, Everest now read my HDD was 300 instead of 150.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 4, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> well i understand compatability but i though sata was supposed to be backwards compatable and since it is i dont know why their would need to be a limit jumper to begin with since thats a mobo manufacturers f up HD makers shouldnt need to adjust protuct specs to comply for a mobo makers fault in product it irritates me because like many of us here we want optimum performance i have a 3gb/s HDD and a 3GB/s slot so thats what i want to run at and like many here i dont care if i can see or feel the diff i want it to run at what i bought it for anything less and its NOT what i bought.



It is compatible, it works doesn't it? As for the jumper, it's explained ON THE COVER as DanishDevil has shown. Besides it's probably in the manual as well. So I think if you (and the others who are complaining) weren't aware it is you who is at fault. It is always stressed to read the manual first (or at least look at the product), then install and/or use a device.
And since you're fully aware of the jumper after you've read I don't see where the confusion comes from.

I think a thread where manufacturers can complain about users who don't read would make more sense than this.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 4, 2008)

well i guess you arent just talking to me than what about the OP or the ppl below him what about the other 3000 ppl on the fopum that dont read manuls?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 4, 2008)




----------



## jonmcc33 (May 4, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> well i understand compatability but i though sata was supposed to be backwards compatable and since it is i dont know why their would need to be a limit jumper to begin with since thats a mobo manufacturers f up HD makers shouldnt need to adjust protuct specs to comply for a mobo makers fault in product it irritates me because like many of us here we want optimum performance i have a 3gb/s HDD and a 3GB/s slot so thats what i want to run at and like many here i dont care if i can see or feel the diff i want it to run at what i bought it for anything less and its NOT what i bought.



Wow. That's one long sentence. 

SATA is supposed to be backwards compatible just as much as PCIe is supposed to be as well, but many people that got an 8800GT that's PCIe 2.0 found problems getting it to work in their motherboard that has a PCIe 1.1 slot. It just happens.

So the easiest way to make a HDD compatible is to make it SATA 1.0 via a jumper. HDD manufacturers don't want to RMA their product because someone is running an older motherboard you know?

In regards to optimum performance, you're getting it already. The 3Gb/s is merely the interface's bandwidth and not the performance you are getting out of the drive itself. Not sure if you understand that at all.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 4, 2008)

ya i kinda have a decent IQ im not 7 or in the 3rd grade thanx though meh w/e its someone elses problem have fun


----------



## panchoman (May 4, 2008)

even being people that can take apart and build up a comp in 20 minutes.. it does help to read the manuals and labels some time.. most companies send you the drive with the jumper, so that you have a jumper to use in the case that you need it, so that you dont have to a buy a jumper.


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 4, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> ya i kinda have a decent IQ im not 7 or in the 3rd grade thanx though meh w/e its someone elses problem have fun



I questioned whether you understood interface bandwidth against actual drive capability. That had nothing to do with your IQ or what school grade you might be in.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 4, 2008)

my apologies and yes i understand


----------

