Conclusion

Western Digital and Seagate clearly had very different goals in mind when they created their respective drives, and the benchmark data shows that they each had some success in achieving those goals. Their strengths certainly come with weaknesses attached, however, and it is clear that both drives have shortcomings that would steer many potential buyers elsewhere.

To begin with, neither of these drives is a world-beater in terms of their raw performance. The Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 doesn't show any meaningful improvement over Seagate's previous iteration of drives, and at no time challenged units which have been established as the top performers (Western Digital Raptor and Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000). In fact, the only drive which the 7200.11 did manage to beat consistently was the Western Digital Caviar GP, a drive which abandoned the thought of leading the performance race altogether in favor of being energy efficient. In this category, the Caviar GP performs admirably, requiring less power, producing relatively little heat, and running quietly while still offering competitive performance on the desktop.

At a street price of about $329, it is difficult to recommend the Seagate drive when the faster Hitachi 7K1000 only costs a few dollars more ($350 street) and surpasses the Seagate in most tests. The 7200.11 is also comparatively noisy and runs only slightly cooler than the Hitachi drive. Seagate's 7200.11 offering performs adequately, though the continued issues in the write-intensive benchmarks are troubling. Simply put, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 is outclassed in the 1TB segment. Seagate does offer a five-year warranty (versus three-years for Hitachi), but truthfully the data is usually far more valuable than the drive; if you need to exercise the warranty, you will likely be unhappy regardless of when a drive failure occurs. A good backup plan is definitely recommended if you value your data.

Passing judgment on the Western Digital Caviar GP is a little bit more difficult. Clearly, its performance is less than stellar; the redeeming feature of the Seagate drive is only that it turns in better results than the Western Digital drive. The Caviar GP, however, is not about pure performance. This drive is about running as efficiently as possible, and it does an excellent job in this regard. In situations where a lot of storage is needed, power consumption is at a premium, and noise is a major enemy (read: HTPC setups), the Western Digital Caviar GP may indeed be a very good choice.

Whether it is a better choice than the Hitachi 7K1000 is a matter of debate, however. With AAM on, the Hitachi drive produced only slightly more noise than the Western Digital, though its power consumption was considerably more. In the vast majority of cases, either drive performs adequately for a single instance of any home-brew PVR application, so if the choice is limited to this type of use, the Western Digital drive may be a better choice, particularly given that at $280 it is substantially less expensive than the Hitachi or the Seagate. The price differential is enough in our opinion to offset the performance penalty that comes with choosing the Western Digital over the Hitachi, but plan this decision carefully if you are not utilizing the drive in an HTPC or SFF system.

PCMark Vantage Continued….
Comments Locked

31 Comments

View All Comments

  • retrospooty - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    I for one found the article helpful. It isn't about showing performance and choosing a winner based on speed, it is about showing all aspects of each and letting the buyer decide. Some people might want pure speed, and some might want a low power, quieter option.

    I think logic is lost on some people.
  • gmyx - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    While 4w may not seem like much to a power user, it is a big deal to someone who is building a low power system such as a VIA based system. It's obviously not going to be used for playing games but can certainly work as a file server / internet proxy. When you can get a power supply with a total output of 60w (pico 60w power supply) every watt saved brings your total lower. A lower total mean less cost for your file server / internet proxy.
  • Lonyo - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link

    I would imagine it would also be nice for a low power home file server.
    1 of these 1TB drives would use probably <1/3rd of the power of 2x500GB drives, or ~1/2 the power of another 1TB drive.
    If you have say a RAID-5 array with 5 or 6 of these drives, you're looking at a decent reduction in power which is always nice for a 24/7 machine.
  • Googer - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    Those who have wanted to use low power hard drives on a desktop motherboard have always had the option of using 2.5" laptop drives.
  • Dave Robinet - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    Well put, Jarred.

    The Hitachi was reviewed some time ago, now, and (as you mention) its results are included in the charts. It gets mention in the conclusion as being the preferred option over the Seagate, as well.

    The Green drive does have a place as a quiet drive (the quietest of the 1TB drives tested), and it comes at a low price point. That's considerable - particularly for HTPC users, who may not appreciate the Hitachi's noise.

    For performance-oriented applications, though, it's a tough sell.
  • DigitalFreak - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    Me thinks that this whole "green" thing from WD is because they were having issues producing a performance drive. Maybe the lower power consumption would make sense in a laptop drive, but I'd much rather have performance on the desktop.

    Seagate's ATA drives have always been so-so performers, so I'm not surprised with the outcome. However, they 5 year warranty more than makes up for it in a home server environment.
  • jojo4u - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    Other drives are performing well. It's nice to have the choice. And there are uses for low-power high-capacity drives.
  • jojo4u - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    See page 2 and page 3 http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0%2C2">http://www.storagereview.com/1000.sr?page=0%2C2

    Your low-level results also back this up.
  • DigitalFreak - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link

    There was a discussion on their forums about how it would be prohibitively expensive to produce a drive that could vary it's spindle speed due to the extra stress on the mechanism.
  • Interlink - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link

    Anybody with a mic e.g. in his headset and a PC with microphon input is able to measure the fixed spindle speed of a WD10EACS: [url=http://forums.storagereview.net/index.php?showtopi...">http://forums.storagereview.net/index.p...c=26021&...]5400 rpm[/url].

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now