Seagate Stores More in Less Space with New 1TB Drive
Posted 01/06/09 at 07:28:40 PM by Mark Edward Soper

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.
Well I've got a Seagate
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 1:05am
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.
Quality
Submitted by archangelx on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 9:42pm
I dont trust Seagate Quality Control to pull it off succesfully.
Quality
Submitted by NoNoBadDog on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 12:20am
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...
If they're shipping at the
Submitted by Syntax on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 9:53pm
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.
.
Submitted by Vano on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 8:34pm
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.
Packing more data into a
Submitted by Syntax on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 9:40pm
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. :)
What do you think about
Submitted by kleinkinstein on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 6:14pm
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.
As for performance you
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 1:15am
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.
What are the performance
Submitted by Syntax on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 9:47pm
What are the performance data?
I'd focus on simple english syntax before trolling our benefactors. Just a thought.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature





