Quantcast

Don't have an account? Register Now! Forgot password?

Maximum IT
News

Seagate Stores More in Less Space with New 1TB Drive

comment Commentsprint Printemail EmailDeliciousDiggStumbleUponRedditFacebookSlashdot

Seagate reaches 500GB per platter mark with Barracuda 7200.12

One-Terabyte drives are no longer unusual, but until now, drive vendors have needed three or more platters to hit the magic 1TB goal. Not any more.

Seagate is now shipping the first 1TB hard disk to get the job done with just two platters: the Barracuda 7200.12. It jams 320 Gigabits of storage per square inch into each platter to achieve its 500GB per platter capacity. It uses a 3Gbps SATA interface and a 32MB cache to move your data around.

The drive is also available in 750GB (32MB cache) and 500GB (16MB cache) capacities. No word on official pricing yet on the 1TB big guy, but some websites are showing the 500GB model selling for about the same price as its predecessor, the Barracuda 7200.11 (32MB cache).

What do you think about getting the same capacity with fewer platters? Will the shorter warranty period for Seagate's new OEM drives prevent you from upgrading? Hit Comment and sound off.

COMMENTS
avatarWell I've got a Seagate

Well I've got a Seagate 500gb 7200.11 32mb cache hdd that's just at one year old now and it's been great. I'm going to hold off on getting another 1tb hdd as my Samsung F1 died shortly after birth and I just haven't the money right now. But I'm saving my pennies and look forward to purchasing a 2TB hdd when it comes out and it sounds like just a few months down the road and we'll be playing with them.

Login or register to post comments
avatarQuality

I dont trust Seagate Quality Control to pull it off succesfully.

Login or register to post comments
avatarQuality

Considering the competition (i.e. Western Digital), I wonder who you would trust to pull it off? Seagate makes a far better product than WD could ever hope to make...

Login or register to post comments
avatarIf they're shipping at the

If they're shipping at the same price(ish?) as the old generation, that's reason enough to test the waters.

 

I  find that usually if a seagate if going to die, it's going to do it in the first week, which should be covered by any good retailer. 

Login or register to post comments
avatar.

I probably have even more idiotic question, but what are the benefits having 2 platers vs 3,4 platers in 3.5" hard drive? The physical size of the HDD obviously doesn't change.

Login or register to post comments
avatarPacking more data into a

Packing more data into a smaller area gives the drive a higher aerial density,
making the drive more efficient and faster by decreasing the movement of the
heads that read and write the data. This movement is what causes the latency in
access times, so making this need to move very far decrease is key. 

 

 This also means we will be seeing bigger drives soon, when they start
using 3 platters at this density. :) 

 

Login or register to post comments
avatarWhat do you think about

What do you think about getting the same capacity with fewer platters?

  What an idiotic question.  What are the performance data?  Please unhike your skirt MPC.

 

Login or register to post comments
avatarAs for performance you

As for performance you notice speedier response when you say open a directory full of MP3's. I don't know what the actual read and right will be but those numbers should be a little better than the 7200.11 as the heads can access more data on just two platters than having to scrounge around on 3 or more but what I'm interested in is this. Take 4 of these platters and what do you get? You get a 2TB hdd. I've had 4 platter HDD befor and there is nothing wrong with them they work just fine. I'll take tons of storage at a slight performance cost but then again that performance can be mitigated by the circuitry on the HDD controller and the type and ammount of Cache and the interface used. 

Also why are HDD's stuck at 7200RPM's only or 10,000RPMs as the next step up? Why not think outside the box. Why not make HDD's that have a 9,000RPM spindle speed or slower or faster? Why do HDD manufacturers have to follow the standards? I say screw the standards and just make a huge HDD and then tweak the hell out of it for all out performance with acceptable error rates. 

Login or register to post comments
avatarWhat are the performance

What are the performance data?

I'd focus on simple english syntax before trolling our benefactors. Just a thought. 

Login or register to post comments
This Month's Issue
FEATURE Windows XP/Vista/7 Tips!FEATURE Monitor Roundup: 7 LCDs ReviewedHOW TOMaster PhotoshopFEATUREAMD's Awesome New GPUWHITE PAPEROrganic LEDs