Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB
Posted 07/07/09 at 10:00:00 AM by Nathan Edwards
Introducing the first two-platter terabyte drive
It was a big month for storage. Not only did Western Digital bring to the market the first 2TB consumer hard drive, but Seagate came to the game with another milestone: a two-platter 1TB drive. Both offerings contain 500GB platters, the highest platter density yet achieved.
The Barracuda 7200.12 1TB is the first drive we’ve tested from the 12th generation of Seagate’s 7,200rpm Barracuda line, and it’s Seagate’s best chance for a fresh start following the firmware issues that plagued its 7200.11 line.
The 1TB 7200.12 has much in common with drives from the previous generation of Barracudas: It features 32MB of L2 cache, 7,200rpm rotational speeds, and SATA 3Gb/s data transfer with Native Command Queuing. The 7200.12, though, needs just two platters to achieve 1TB, whereas the 7200.11 used four.
The next-generation Seagate Barracuda is wicked-fast.
Generally, fewer platters mean higher areal density, which translates into better performance. For example, our previous favorite terabyte drive, the Samsung Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ, used three platters and outperformed the older Barracuda’s four platters. So surely a two-platter drive will be faster, right?
Yup. The new 1TB Barracuda’s read and write speeds approach those of the Western Digital Velociraptor. The Barracuda’s average sustained reads in our h2benchw benchmark exceeded 100MB/s, 7 percent faster than the Samsung’s, while sustained write speeds were an impressive 99.3MB/s, nearly 14 percent faster than the Samsung drive. Random access reads were more than 25 percent quicker on the Barracuda, burst speeds were 24MB/s faster, and the Barracuda’s PCMark Vantage score was more than 25 percent higher than the Samsung’s. In fact, only the Barracuda’s random-access write speeds failed to beat the Samsung’s—at 15.2ms, they’re still zippy, but no match for the Samsung’s 9.8ms response time.
The 1TB 7200.12 drive has a list price of $150 and a street price of about $120, which puts it in direct competition with its older, bigger cousin, the 1.5TB Barracuda 7200.11—which has retailed for around $140 consistently for months. The 2TB Western Digital Caviar Green fetches $300.
As appealing as the Caviar’s eco-friendly message may be, you can actually save money by buying two of the 7200.12 drives—and get better performance to boot.
First two-platter 1TB drive; wicked-fast. Beats previous contender easily.
Somewhat high MSRP; higher random-access writes than expected.
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB | Samsung Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ 1TB | |
|---|---|---|
| h2benchw Average Sustained transfer Rate Read (MB/s) | 100.4 | 93.2 |
| h2benchw Average Sustained transfer Rate Write (MB/s) | 99.3 | 86.0 |
| h2benchw Random Access Read (ms) | 14.5 | 20.59 |
| h2benchw Random Access Write (ms) | 15.2 | 9.8 |
| HD Tach Burst Read (MB/s) | 217 | 193 |
| PCMark Vantage Overall Score | 5,323 | 4,252 |
Best scores are bolded. Our test bed uses a 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700, 2GB of Corsair DDR2/800 RAM on an EVGA 680 SLI motherboard, one EVGA GeForce 8800 GTX card, a Western Digital 500GB Caviar hard drive, and a PC Power and Cooling Turbo Cool PSU. Scores for h2benchw and HDTach were generated in Windows XP Professional with SP2. PCMark Vantage scores were run in Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit.
Seagate = Fail
Submitted by hemicharg3r on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 4:11pm
Why is it that Max PC does not consider reputation and track record before slapping a Kick Ass on stuff? Perhaps you should think about polling your readers and slapping THAT general consensus result in graphic form next to your KA rating to see what the real world "test results" are. Just because it ran your tests the best doesn't mean lipstick's not being applied to a pig. I've been doing a lot of research on HD's for a new system build and Seagate's questionable QA and lack of reliability come up twice (or more) as much as any other company. This really surprised me since I was looking to them first based on what their reputation was (Read: RCA, Hoover, et al) from many years past. Very disappointing. I will be sticking with the only stalwart left, IMO, Western Digital.
segate .11 was fail. And
Submitted by nekollx on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 4:48pm
segate .11 was fail. And MPC even caleld them on it...
.12 not so much
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Track Record
Submitted by hemicharg3r on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 9:29pm
You read the post and assumed I was talking about one particular drive with bad firmware. I was not. I was refererring to their track record going back over the last few years. One model that bricks at an unacceptable rate sucks but doesn't mean their whole line blows. This is different. Read around and you'll see, Seagate is progressing rapidly at destroying their rep with complaints of brickage all over the place (Read thru the reviews for 5 or so Seagate drives at any reputable seller and compare to WD and yes, including .12. When the common theme is "Con: It's a Seagate" then their rep is getting flushed. We all remember the Deathstar and the rep it created for IBM.) and your QA is not there and your product is failing people, what happens? Why, they look for an alternative at an exponentially increasing rate: Enter SSD! Far from cheap and practical, but prices are already dropping. Perhaps if Seagate wants to protect their rep and their market share, they should take a look at their QA and what their (now former) customers are saying all over the net: Buy WD, Buy SSD, Buy anything else.
Velociraptors should be way
Submitted by erolsipar on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 8:17am
Velociraptors should be way cheaper. 1TB vs 300GB. $99 vs $229. 100.4mb/99.3mb vs 108.4mb/100mb
Random access may be higher than Velociraptor but a TB matters. On average same speed. 8-9 mb won't be slow.
[URL=http://www.speedtest.net][IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/496449551.png[/IMG][/URL]
Velociraptor vs Barracuda 7200.12
Submitted by rlynker on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 3:01pm
Couldn't you guys post a comparison between the Barracuda 7200.12 and the Velociraptor. I can look at the Velociraptor review from June 2008 as erolsipar did, but the applications used to test each are different (don't know HOW different, but still) plus the PC used to run each test is different. It would be nice to get a more apples to apples comparison to decide if it's really worth the HUGE price/storage difference. Thanks.
yeah their closing the
Submitted by nekollx on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 9:47am
yeah their closing the perfomrance gape betwen 7,200 rpm and 10k rpm. WD need to make a new, i dunno, untraraptor to justify the price point.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Tempted, but not willing to trust
Submitted by Thresher on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 5:43am
I've had both a 1.5TB and a 500GB Seagate faile due to their firmware issues. I'm not willing to try this thing until it's been out for a while and has some sort of track record.
trust
Submitted by Gigabyte on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 11:28am
My .11 series drives haven't failed, but I read a lot of horror stories. You can't blame anyone for not trusting Seagate right now. It took them a long time to release firmware updates for the .11 series, and no real warning to my knowledge. You can still purchase bad drives. Who knows what Seagate is up to now, besides avoiding recalls & bad press. Some people are already reporting bad experiences with the .12 series. I'm keeping an eye out for firmware updates.
Importants links:
Firmware Updates for Seagate Products [207931]
ALL FIRMWARE UPDATES - see here
Using this hard drive this
Submitted by GFC on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 5:07am
Using this hard drive this second, very good hard drive, it's a lot quieter than my old one and wayy faster.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature







