Samsung F3 vs Seagate 7200.12 vs WD 640 Black

[LAN_deRf_HA]

The middle one is from fits, the samsung and WD are mine. Samsung outright beats the seagate, WD has the access time. Both 500s are single platter, WD is double. The samsung only cost me $50 free shipping.

Only real problem with samsung is I don't trust their reliability... even if they are the fastest drives out now... according to this at least http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2009/10/06/samsung-spinpoint-f3-1tb-review/1

 

[erocker]

Ouch! My 1tb 7200.12 gets much better performance than that! Maybe it's the difference of storage controllers.

 

[Solaris17]

EDIT: agree with E my sammy F1 1TB gets better performance than that drive. i avg above 100mb/s minimum (when the drive was ampty.) im like 700GB in and i avg about 75 or so min

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Well I don't know how to explain the minimum rates, only thing I see that's similar with your rigs is you both have cpus with high memory bandwidth? Not sure if that really relates.

 

[Solaris17]

no thats purely ram based. our bus speed is still the same as it has to be locked

 

[erocker]

Have you checked your device manager to make sure there are no missing drivers? You may want to update your chipset.

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Sea...=Intel®+Chipset+Software+Installation+Utility

INF Update Utility -​​ Primarily for Intel® 5,​ 4,​ 3,​ 900 Series Chipsets

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I did that first thing when I installed win7 a week ago. All I can think is you two have much newer controllers? Because the center benchmark from fits and many others I've seen around the forum match up to mine, having above 100mb/s minimum seems to be a bit uncommon.

 

[Kantastic]

Sorry about the thread jack, but at the same price would you get a 500GB F3 or 500GB .12? I'm looking to grab my dad a new HDD since the old .9 makes really loud grinding noises (been like that since day 1), and I don't want to get another Caviar Black since I have one.

 

[newtekie1]

Wow, WTH is wrong with that Western Digital? My seagate LP drives average only 10MB/s slower, and they are 5900RPM drives...:shadedshu

 

[LittleLizard]

Sorry about the thread jack, but at the same price would you get a 500GB F3 or 500GB .12? I'm looking to grab my dad a new HDD since the old .9 makes really loud grinding noises (been like that since day 1), and I don't want to get another Caviar Black since I have one.

if i were you i would go for seagate. I know their reliability is good (at least in my case)

 

[kylzer]

Ive got a 640black ill post my results later as i get different from that.

 

[MilkyWay]

WD drives win in reliability, the new F3 was supposed to be faster than the F1. F2 was just some "green" low power thing i think?

Seagate are okay mixed bag your drive will either die rather quick or live forever, i have a seagate 7200.12 tis okay has 32mb of cache just a backup drive really.

The F1 had sector problems tho, got a FREE refund and a replacement cannot beat that!
Money no expense id get a fast WD drive tho, for me at the time the F1 was fast and cheap or well SSD but they are low capacity right now so...

 

[erocker]

Ouch! My 1tb 7200.12 gets much better performance than that! Maybe it's the difference of storage controllers.

I need to put my foot in my mouth. My 7200.12 gets the exact same performance as that with an AMD system. One thing I just noticed though is your CPU usage for that drive is insanely high!

 

[theonedub]

http://img.techpowerup.org/091030/poke.png

EDIT: agree with E my sammy F1 1TB gets better performance than that drive. i avg above 100mb/s minimum (when the drive was ampty.) im like 700GB in and i avg about 75 or so min

That drive is pure win, love mine.

 

[twicksisted]

i just bought a 1TB samsung F3 to go into my main rig earlier today (arriving tomorrow morning!).... have a 250Gb samsung drive in my spare pc which is on 24/7 for the last 3 years or so with no issues.... i trust these sammy drives as much as i trust WD drives... and on top of it they run loads cooler and quieter

 

[MilkyWay]

i just bought a 1TB samsung F3 to go into my main rig earlier today (arriving tomorrow morning!).... have a 250Gb samsung drive in my spare pc which is on 24/7 for the last 3 years or so with no issues.... i trust these sammy drives as much as i trust WD drives... and on top of it they run loads cooler and quieter

samsung drives are quiet, cool and not power hungry

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I suppose it's worth noting the two drives I tested are half full but recently defraged. I recall the samsung scoring higher when it was empty but I don't remember what it got.

 

[Steevo]

Comparing a older lower capacity drive to a newer one is wrong. the higher the aurial density the faster the continuous reads and writes.

A 1TB drive has much faster reads and writes as the amount of data per revolution is higher due to more physical disks and heads, or higher data density. A 2TB drive will have faster reads and writes, a smaller drive like a 500 will have slower.



The 640 is only directly comparable to the 500's if they have the same number of platters, heads or were direct competitive offerings/made in the same short time frame.

 

[angelkiller]

http://img.techpowerup.org/091030/poke.png

EDIT: agree with E my sammy F1 1TB gets better performance than that drive. i avg above 100mb/s minimum (when the drive was ampty.) im like 700GB in and i avg about 75 or so min

AFAIK, hdd bandwidth has nothing do do with how full it is. Any specific point on a hard drive can deliver data a a certain speed regardless of what that data is (or isn't). I could be wrong, but it doesn't make sense that the fuller it gets, the slower a benchmark is.

Wow, WTH is wrong with that Western Digital? My seagate LP drives average only 10MB/s slower, and they are 5900RPM drives...:shadedshu

Platter density. 500GB @ 5900rpm vs 320GB @ 7200rpm. But I guarantee your access time on that LP drive isn't under 12ms! Big platters give high bandwidth but 5900rpm gives slow access times.


Now those benches bring up a new question... Access times or bandwidth? The WD Black has a sub 12ms access time, which I'm sure has to be in the top 3 for 7200rpm drives. However, the Samsung can deliver data 24% faster on average, sequentially. I'm more inclined to the WD Black unless I have a specific need for sequential reads.

 

[newtekie1]

Platter density. 500GB @ 5900rpm vs 320GB @ 7200rpm. But I guarantee your access time on that LP drive isn't under 12ms! Big platters give high bandwidth but 5900rpm gives slow access times.

13.0ms exactly, so faster than the other two drives, and only 1ms slower than the WD. Not bad, the access time difference wouldn't even be noticeable.

 

[angelkiller]

13.0ms exactly, so faster than the other two drives, and only 1ms slower than the WD. Not bad, the access time difference wouldn't even be noticeable.

I find it hard to believe that a 5900rpm hard drive can achieve an access time of 13ms. Seagate has a drive called the Pipeline HD Pro, which is not a part of the LP series and it spins at 7200rpm and has a capacity of 1TB. Do you have this drive, by chance?

 

[newtekie1]

I find it hard to believe that a 5900rpm hard drive can achieve an access time of 13ms. Seagate has a drive called the Pipeline HD Pro, which is not a part of the LP series and it spins at 7200rpm and has a capacity of 1TB. Do you have this drive, by chance?

Nope, I have LP drive, ST31500541AS to be exact.

Ignore CPU usage, F@H was running in the background.

 

[angelkiller]

Nope, I have LP drive, ST31500541AS to be exact.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/5900.jpg
Ignore CPU usage, F@H was running in the background.

Well then. I'm wrong.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

This is what someone reports for the 1 TB F3 on newegg.

Burst rate: 165 MB/sec
Max Read: 148 MB/sec
Avg Read: 117MB/sec
Min Read: 72 MB/sec
Access time: 13.1 ms

Seems pretty close to what I got on the single platter version, though for some reason the access time is better despite being the 2 platter version? I suppose that's just differences between chipsets and how full/fraged the drives are.

Maybe we need to start a thread where everyone posts their hd tune results along side their chipsets and a general statement about how full/fraged it is. The first post can be updated with a direct link to posts with the hd tune results, grouping them by exact drive models. So people can see differences between drives, and differences between the same drive, both on the same and different chipsets. Might not be necessary, but could be useful.

On a related note, I find my brother's old raptor results interesting. Def. wins latency, but nothing else.

 

[twicksisted]

ill post up a HDtune of my 1TB sammy F3 i just installed today after i get all my service packs in