Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000: Terabyte Storage arrives on the Desktop
by Gary Key on March 19, 2007 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Quick Take
Our limited experiences to date with the Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 have been terrific and beyond expectations. The overall performance of this drive has been phenomenal and is close enough to the WD1500ADFD Raptor drive that we consider it a worthy adversary. The Raptors are still the drives to own for benchmarking but this drive is a better overall performance value. In fact, based upon subjective testing we could seriously consider tossing this drive into the same performance sector as the WD Raptor when utilized in the typical gaming or enthusiast level machine where this drive will likely find a home.
We found the overall write performance and sustained transfer rates to be excellent and class leading in several of our test results to date. The drive even has the best overall thermal and acoustic characteristics of the high performance 7200rpm drives and absolutely blows away the Raptors in this respect. Of course, the 7K1000 does not have to contend with 10,000 rpm spindle speeds and firmware that is generally designed to extract the greatest amount of performance from the drive. However, considering the drive has a five platter design we think Hitachi has done a wonderful job in controlling thermals.
Hitachi's implementation of their Automatic Acoustic Management technology on the 7K1000 does not hinder performance in a noticeable manner and offers a significant advantage for those needing a spacious drive in a silent system. We cannot wait to test the CinemaStar version of this drive that will be designed with DVR operations in mind but for now our HTPC test bed has found a new drive. As stated in the article, we believe leaving AAM and NCQ turned on provides the best performance experience with this drive. While there may be a very slight performance advantage in certain benchmarks with AAM off (NCQ also), we feel like the benefits of having a near silent 1TB drive in our system is well worth the price of losing a few benchmark points.
The Deskstar 7K1000 is not without faults. We did find in our Nero Recode tests and to some degree in our Winstone tests that the drive does not perform as well as expected in handling large block sizes of data in sequential order. The Achilles heel of the Seagate 750GB drive was its inability to handle large files in non-sequential order. Hitachi has overcome this for this most part with a large 32 MB cache and from all apparent indications firmware that is tuned with operational balance in mind or even favoring non-sequential read/writes. A luxury it can afford due to its cache size and areal density advantages over the other drives in our test group.
Overall, we think Hitachi's Deskstar 7K1000 is the best 7200rpm drive we have tested to date. This is quite the accomplishment considering this is Hitachi's first 3.5-inch form factor drive that utilizes perpendicular recording technology. We still have significant testing left to complete on this drive that includes our full IPEAK and Application test suite with AAM and NCQ turned off or on along with RAID testing but we do not expect to find any surprises at this time. With an expected retail price of $399 or $0.40 per-Gigabyte this makes the 7K1000 a true value considering its size and performance. For these reasons, we highly recommend the purchase of this drive if you are currently looking for a high-capacity drive with performance to match.
We would like to thank Dell once again for providing our test samples and encourage you to visit StudioDell or take a look at the systems currently shipping with this impressive drive.
Our limited experiences to date with the Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 have been terrific and beyond expectations. The overall performance of this drive has been phenomenal and is close enough to the WD1500ADFD Raptor drive that we consider it a worthy adversary. The Raptors are still the drives to own for benchmarking but this drive is a better overall performance value. In fact, based upon subjective testing we could seriously consider tossing this drive into the same performance sector as the WD Raptor when utilized in the typical gaming or enthusiast level machine where this drive will likely find a home.
We found the overall write performance and sustained transfer rates to be excellent and class leading in several of our test results to date. The drive even has the best overall thermal and acoustic characteristics of the high performance 7200rpm drives and absolutely blows away the Raptors in this respect. Of course, the 7K1000 does not have to contend with 10,000 rpm spindle speeds and firmware that is generally designed to extract the greatest amount of performance from the drive. However, considering the drive has a five platter design we think Hitachi has done a wonderful job in controlling thermals.
Hitachi's implementation of their Automatic Acoustic Management technology on the 7K1000 does not hinder performance in a noticeable manner and offers a significant advantage for those needing a spacious drive in a silent system. We cannot wait to test the CinemaStar version of this drive that will be designed with DVR operations in mind but for now our HTPC test bed has found a new drive. As stated in the article, we believe leaving AAM and NCQ turned on provides the best performance experience with this drive. While there may be a very slight performance advantage in certain benchmarks with AAM off (NCQ also), we feel like the benefits of having a near silent 1TB drive in our system is well worth the price of losing a few benchmark points.
The Deskstar 7K1000 is not without faults. We did find in our Nero Recode tests and to some degree in our Winstone tests that the drive does not perform as well as expected in handling large block sizes of data in sequential order. The Achilles heel of the Seagate 750GB drive was its inability to handle large files in non-sequential order. Hitachi has overcome this for this most part with a large 32 MB cache and from all apparent indications firmware that is tuned with operational balance in mind or even favoring non-sequential read/writes. A luxury it can afford due to its cache size and areal density advantages over the other drives in our test group.
Overall, we think Hitachi's Deskstar 7K1000 is the best 7200rpm drive we have tested to date. This is quite the accomplishment considering this is Hitachi's first 3.5-inch form factor drive that utilizes perpendicular recording technology. We still have significant testing left to complete on this drive that includes our full IPEAK and Application test suite with AAM and NCQ turned off or on along with RAID testing but we do not expect to find any surprises at this time. With an expected retail price of $399 or $0.40 per-Gigabyte this makes the 7K1000 a true value considering its size and performance. For these reasons, we highly recommend the purchase of this drive if you are currently looking for a high-capacity drive with performance to match.
We would like to thank Dell once again for providing our test samples and encourage you to visit StudioDell or take a look at the systems currently shipping with this impressive drive.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
It has worked well for us to date. We also took readings with several other programs and a thermal probe. All readings were similar so we trust it at this time. I understand your concern as the sensors have not always been accurate.mkruer - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
I hate this decimal Byte rating they use. They say the capacity is 1 TeraByte meaning 1,000,000,000,000 Bytes, this actually translates into ~930GB or .93TB that the OS will see using the more commonly used (base 2) metric. This is the metric that people assume you are talking about. When will the drive manufactures get with the picture and list the standard Byte capacity?Spoelie - Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - link
I don't think it matters all that much, once you heard it you know it. There's not even a competitive marketing advantage or any scamming going on since ALL the drive manufacturers use it and in marketing material there's always a note somewhere explaining 1GB = blablabla bytes. So 160GB on one drive = 160GB on another drive. That it's not the formatted capacity has been made clear for years now, so I think most people who it matters for know.Zoomer - Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - link
IBM used to not do this. Their advertised 120GB drive was actually 123.xxGB, where the GB referred to the decimal giga. This made useable capacity a little over 120GB. :)JarredWalton - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
See above, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix">SI prefix overview and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix">binary prefix overview for details. It's telling that this came into being in 1998, at which time there was a class action lawsuit occurring I believe.Of course, you can blame the computer industry for just "approximating" way back when KB and MB were first introduced to be 1024 and 1048576 bytes. It probably would have been best if they had created new prefixes rather than cloning the SI prefixes and altering their meaning.
It's all academic at this point, and we just try to present the actual result for people so that they understand what is truly meant (i.e. the "Formatted Capacity").
Olaf van der Spek - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
The screenshot shows only 1 x 10 ^ 12 bytes. :(
And I'm wondering, do you know about any plans for 2.5" desktop drives (meaning, not more expensive than cheapest 3.5" drives and better access time)?
crimson117 - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
How many bytes does this drive actually hold? Is it 1,000,000,000,000 bytes or 1,099,511,627,776 bytes?It's interesting... it used to not seem like a huge difference, but now that we're approaching such high capacities, it's almost a 100 GB difference - more than most laptop hard disks!
crimson117 - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
I should learn to read: Operating System Stated Capacity: 931.5 GBJarredWalton - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
Of course, the standard people decided (AFTER the fact) that we should now use GiB and MiB and TiB for multiples of 1024 (2^10). Most of us grew up thinking 1KB = 1024B, 1MB = 1024KB, etc. I would say the redefinition was in a large part to prevent future class action lawsuits (i.e. I could see storage companies lobbying SI to create a "new" definition). Windows of course continues to use the older standard.Long story short, multiples of 1000 are used for referring to bandwidth and - according to the storage sector - storage capacity. Multiples of 1024 are used for memory capacity and - according to most software companies - storage capacity. SI sides with the storage people on the use of mibibytes, gibibytes, etc.
mino - Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - link
Ehm, ehm.GB was ALWAYS spelled Giga-Byte and Giga- with short "G" is a standard prefix for 10^9 since the 19th century(maybe longer).
The one who screwed up were the software guys whoe just ignored the fact 1024!=1000 and used the same prefix with different meaning.
SI for long ignored this stupidity.
Lately SI guys realized software guys are too careless to accept the reality that 1024 really does not equal 1000.
It is far better to have some standard way to define 1024-multiples and have many people use old wrong prefixes than to have no such definition at all.
I remember clearly how confused I was back in my 8th grade on Informatics class when teacher tried(and failed back then) to explain why everywhere SI prefixes mean 10^x but in computers they mean 2^10 aka 1024.
IT took me some 4 years until I was comfortable with power-of-something nubers enough so that it did not matter whether one said 512 or 2^9 to me.
This prefix issue is a mess SI did not create nor caused. They are just trying to clean it up in the single possible way.