# Seagate 7200.11 vs. Samsung F1



## CarolinaKSU (May 21, 2008)

Well my little 500gb WD is maxed out and I want to build a raid0 array for the obvious performance improvments. However, I am torn between two Samsung F1s or Seagate 7200.11s.. input anyone??


----------



## newtekie1 (May 21, 2008)

I would go with the seagate.  Both are going to give you pretty much identical performance, but IMO, Seagate makes better quality drives.


----------



## DanishDevil (May 21, 2008)

Go with whichever costs you less.  I unfortunately dropped about $200 on the Seagate 750GB and a week later they had the Samsungs for $115


----------



## CarolinaKSU (May 21, 2008)

Of course luck would have it, same price on newegg.. 

Samsung

Seagate

Also interesting to note that neither of these get good reviews on there.. Of course we all know better.


----------



## wolf2009 (May 21, 2008)

WD SE16 640 GB drive is better than both of them . its faster and quiet and uses less power .


----------



## FatForester (May 21, 2008)

I'm looking to buy the Samsung F1 750gb, and it's $110 bucks at ZipZoomFly.

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10007193


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (May 21, 2008)

I vote for the Seagate if those are your two options.  I have always been a WD guy though.


----------



## mikek75 (May 21, 2008)

I just bought a Samsung Spinpoint F1 500GB two days ago, very pleased with it so far. Vista 64 filled my little 80GB Maxtor in no time so it was necessary, LOL. Has improved my system overall, is very quiet and cost £47 (about $94) including 17.5% Value added tax. No regrets, at the end of the day ANY manufacturer has failures, nature of the beast.


----------



## panchoman (May 21, 2008)

go with the samsung, it out performs the seagate and uses less power etc


----------



## mikek75 (May 21, 2008)

Cheers Panchoman, nice to know I made a good choice for a change!


----------



## panchoman (May 21, 2008)

im suprised that seagate is winning in this thread, in other threads, samsung wins hands down.. 

btw more info on the f1 is here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-overtakes-a-bang,1730.html


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 21, 2008)

I've always been a seagate guy... after failed hitachi, ibms and maxtors. I never had a WD drive fail, but the one I had until recently was slow. The seagates WERE the best (for the last 3-5 years or so).  However, I switched to Samsung F1 and am not disappointed. They are: very fast, very quiet, run cool, and lower power consumption. Full recommendation from me.

The WD drives have got a lot better too. But IMO the F1's are still better. And I dont like the way "Green power" jumps onto the eco-bandwagon, but isnt really any more eco friendly that competitors. 

I agree with pancho, every review I've seen has F1's the winner *on average*. There may occasionally be ONE benchmark that is better, but across all benchmarks, they win. IF you are considering seagate still, then my tip is *NOT* the 7200.11 but the DB35.3 or DB35.4. They are quieter, cooler and designed for enterprise, RAID and video.  Much better than 7200.11, but a bit more expensive.


----------



## panchoman (May 21, 2008)

finnally got tom's to work: 
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...ead-transfer-performance,658.html?p=1826,1782
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...ritetransfer-performance,659.html?p=1826,1782
etc.


----------



## CarolinaKSU (May 21, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> IF you are considering seagate still, then my tip is *NOT* the 7200.11 but the DB35.3 or DB35.4.



Got a link? I tried looking around and couldnt find any for sale, just that they were announced.


----------



## panchoman (May 21, 2008)

cant find db drives, do you mean sv or es?


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 21, 2008)

I just bought a IDE DB35.3 500GB for my MusicCAST to replace the original WD1600 160MB.

The difference was amazing. After ripping a few CDs the MusicCAST got hot to the touch. With the new DB35.3, it is cool to the touch. Not very scientific. But very noticable.

What is your 10-20?

http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/consumer_electronics/db35_series/db35_series_7200.4/


----------



## wolf2009 (May 21, 2008)

take a look at this review 

spinpoint f1 is faster than seagate , and many times wd se16 640 gb is faster than both.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 21, 2008)

Thats an interesting review. The WD SE16 640GB is *fast*. Nice. But the speed is achieved through a new, higher, data density. 320GB rather than 250GB per platter.  That's impressive. But it also means we can expect Seagate and Samsung to release 320GB platters soon, and they will be top. But quite right... TODAY the WD SE16 seems the fastest. Worth considering.


----------



## DanishDevil (May 21, 2008)

32mb cache really helps though.  I want a 320GB platter 32mb cache drive.


----------



## FatForester (May 21, 2008)

Samsung uses 334gb platters in their 1TB drive, and it has 32mb cache, so there ya go Danish! As far as speed vs. capacity, the WD 640GB 2-platter is 5 dollars more (at newegg) than the Samsung F1 750GB 3 platter at ZipZoomFly. It all just depends on what your priorities are.


----------



## niko084 (May 21, 2008)

Samsung F1's are nice but the WD RE2's are where the performance is really at right now.
7200.11's are not too great, lots of them are failing, and they are pretty slow.


----------



## wolf2009 (May 21, 2008)

FatForester said:


> Samsung uses 334gb platters in their 1TB drive, and it has 32mb cache, so there ya go Danish! As far as speed vs. capacity, the WD 640GB 2-platter is 5 dollars more (at newegg) than the Samsung F1 750GB 3 platter at ZipZoomFly. It all just depends on what your priorities are.



ya samsung f1 750mb drive also has 3 platters , same as their 1 tb drive , but has some GB deactivated on the third platter.


----------



## FatForester (May 22, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> ya samsung f1 750mb drive also has 3 platters , same as their 1 tb drive , but has some GB deactivated on the third platter.



That's true, I didn't know if that was worth mentioning or not.


----------



## wolf2009 (May 22, 2008)

FatForester said:


> That's true, I didn't know if that was worth mentioning or not.



ultimately it consumes more power , but overall its a nice drive .


----------



## CarolinaKSU (May 24, 2008)

Well, I decided to take the plunge and go with the Samsung F1 750GB ( x2 of course). I cant wait to put them in a RAID and let those puppies scream..


----------



## PaulieG (May 24, 2008)

I've been running an F1 for 2 months. It is the quickest, quietest, and coolest drive I've ever owned..hands down, and I've owned 50+ drives over the last 5 years.


----------



## oli_ramsay (May 24, 2008)

I also own an F1 and it's great especially 750 GB for only £70.

However the fastest drive I've owned it this one


----------



## DanishDevil (May 24, 2008)

That's a lie.


----------



## philbrown23 (May 24, 2008)

+1


----------



## wolf2009 (May 24, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> That's a lie.



it may be GIGABYTE's i-RAM drive . not sure though . i think only that drive has crazy speeds like this.


----------



## mullered07 (May 24, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> it may be GIGABYTE's i-RAM drive . not sure though . i think only that drive has crazy speeds like this.



it is a ramdrive and its not a lie, its just a software program that can use ram as a drive to run programs from similar to the i-drive but done in software, so its not a lie. 

back on topic i would go with the wd SE16 640gb and will be myself as soon as i find one in the UK at a good price


----------



## oli_ramsay (May 24, 2008)

hehe, it's no lie!

I allocated 1 GB of my RAM to be used as a HDD.  Was gonna use it as opera's internet cache but the software has stopped working for some reason


----------



## wolf2009 (May 24, 2008)

oli_ramsay said:


> hehe, it's no lie!
> 
> I allocated 1 GB of my RAM to be used as a HDD.  Was gonna use it as opera's internet cache but the software has stopped working for some reason



wat soft is it ?  

so does this mean if i get 4 GB more RAM to have 8 GB total , i can allocate some GB of RAM to be used as HDD ?


----------



## oli_ramsay (May 24, 2008)

software is here: http://www.superspeed.com/download/trialversions.php

yea you can allocate as much as you want

It's just a matter of what can you put on the HD to speed things up.  Internet cache is the only thing that I can think of.


----------



## largon (May 25, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> ya samsung f1 750mb drive also has 3 platters , same as their 1 tb drive , but has some GB deactivated on the third platter.


Nope. 
It is _known_ 750GB F1 has lower density platters (250GB/platter) that perform worse than those on the 1TB model (320GB/platter).


----------



## wolf2009 (May 25, 2008)

largon said:


> Nope.
> It is _known_ 750GB F1 has lower density platters (250GB/platter) that perform worse than those on the 1TB model (320GB/platter).



Nope ur wrong . 

750 GB Spinpoint F1 has the same 3 x 334 GB platters as the 1 TB Spinpoint F1 .


> Given its use of 334GB platters, you would think Samsung would offer two additional F1 variants to accompany the terabyte model: a 334GB model using a single platter and a two-platter model with 668GB of capacity. And you would be wrong. Instead, Samsung is sticking to the industry-standard capacities embraced by its competitors, extending the F1 down to 750, 500, and 320GB. It's hard to see the rationale behind such a move. Those lower capacities leave a respective 250, 168, and 14GB of unused platter capacity on the table, which strikes us as unnecessarily wasteful.



Thats what techreport has to say on the first page in this review


----------



## oli_ramsay (May 25, 2008)

It seems crazy to use 3 x 334GB platters on 750GB drives and disabling 250GB.  They should just bring out single platter 333GB two platter 666GB and 3 platter 1TB drives.


----------



## farlex85 (May 25, 2008)

Thats why scratch em all and go for the se16 640. Uses 2 platters, and has tested faster than either, and in some cases faster than the raptor.


----------



## wolf2009 (May 25, 2008)

oli_ramsay said:


> It seems crazy to use 3 x 334GB platters on 750GB drives and disabling 250GB.  They should just bring out single platter 333GB two platter 666GB and 3 platter 1TB drives.



ya it seems crazy , but point to note is that is there any hack to enable that extra 250GB and get a 1 TB drive for the price of 750GB ?


----------



## DanishDevil (May 25, 2008)

oli_ramsay said:


> hehe, it's no lie!
> 
> I allocated 1 GB of my RAM to be used as a HDD.  Was gonna use it as opera's internet cache but the software has stopped working for some reason



It's not a drive.  Hence the lie.


----------



## largon (May 25, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> Nope ur wrong .
> 
> 750 GB Spinpoint F1 has the same 3 x 334 GB platters as the 1 TB Spinpoint F1 .
> 
> ...


This is how 334GB platters perform.
And this is how F1 750GB performs. Obviously techreport is clueless as 750GB has 250GB platters.


----------



## oli_ramsay (May 25, 2008)

DanishDevil said:


> It's not a drive.  Hence the lie.



meh


----------



## CarolinaKSU (May 25, 2008)

edit: I completey messed up my math and 250 per GB is accurate. However, I have already made my purchase and I am extremely excited because the performance of these HDDs is amazing, I can't wait to get them in Raid 0!


----------

