Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000: Terabyte Storage arrives on the Desktop
by Gary Key on March 19, 2007 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Hard Disk Performance: HD Tune
The Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 has the second highest overall sustained transfer rates of the three drives listed. The sustained transfer rate is nipping on the heels of the WD1500AHFD in this test while the maximum transfer rate is slightly ahead and the minimum results are about 17% slower. Our first screenshot is the Hitachi drive with Automatic Acoustic Management and NCQ turned on. The second screenshot has both features turned off. We also tested with AAM off and NCQ on with the burst rate results mirroring the first screenshot and the access time mirroring the second screenshot. This means that NCQ being turned off is what affected burst transfer rates and AAM being on increased the access times in these synthetic tests.
We did not expect this as previous test results with several drives showed that AAM usually caused a performance penalty in both transfer and access time rates. In our application tests we found that enabling AAM usually did not alter the test results more than 1% and at times the scores were even or slightly better (other than the lower access times). Even though the 7K1000 drive has excellent sustained transfer rates we will soon see this does not always translate into class leading performance.
Hard Disk Performance: HD Tach
We are also including HD Tach results for each drive. Once again the first screenshot has the 7K1000 test score with AAM and NCQ turned on while the second screenshot is with both options turned off. Our tests with AAM turned off and NCQ on resulted in scores nearly identical to the HD Tune results indicating once again that AAM does not inflict a noticeable performance penalty on this drive. The balance of the performance results between our test samples basically mirrors those of our HD Tune scores.
The Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000 has the second highest overall sustained transfer rates of the three drives listed. The sustained transfer rate is nipping on the heels of the WD1500AHFD in this test while the maximum transfer rate is slightly ahead and the minimum results are about 17% slower. Our first screenshot is the Hitachi drive with Automatic Acoustic Management and NCQ turned on. The second screenshot has both features turned off. We also tested with AAM off and NCQ on with the burst rate results mirroring the first screenshot and the access time mirroring the second screenshot. This means that NCQ being turned off is what affected burst transfer rates and AAM being on increased the access times in these synthetic tests.
We did not expect this as previous test results with several drives showed that AAM usually caused a performance penalty in both transfer and access time rates. In our application tests we found that enabling AAM usually did not alter the test results more than 1% and at times the scores were even or slightly better (other than the lower access times). Even though the 7K1000 drive has excellent sustained transfer rates we will soon see this does not always translate into class leading performance.
Hard Disk Performance: HD Tach
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
We are also including HD Tach results for each drive. Once again the first screenshot has the 7K1000 test score with AAM and NCQ turned on while the second screenshot is with both options turned off. Our tests with AAM turned off and NCQ on resulted in scores nearly identical to the HD Tune results indicating once again that AAM does not inflict a noticeable performance penalty on this drive. The balance of the performance results between our test samples basically mirrors those of our HD Tune scores.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
yacoub - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
I've been curious how much help drives would get from a larger cache. What if smaller drives came with, say, 64MB of cache?JarredWalton - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
Looking at the 750GB Seagate with its 16MB cache, there are definitely areas where the 32MB cache helps. Basically, with the larger capacities you need more cache to effectively handle all the data. Realistically, I'd say there's about 0% chance we'll see 64MB cache on smaller drives. When we're running 2TB drives, however....atomicacid55 - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
I wish that the T7K500 could be reviewed in this. After all, that's the current challenger to the 7200.10, and if you read STR, the consensus is that it's an overall faster drive than the 7200.10. Every drive manufacturer tends to set its own trends in performance, and I personally believe it's more useful to have a comparison of the 7K1000 with its sibling rather than only against other brands.Gary Key - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
Hitachi is finally sending us a T7K500. We will have a 500GB roundup with the latest drives from WD, Seagate, Samsung, and Hitachi in April.dm0r - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
Never thought a 7200 RPM drive could be very competitive to a 10000 one...Thanks to its 32 Mb Cache.Loved the acoustics test, it shows a very quiet drive.With this new drives coming to the market, Western Digital will have to think about its raptors Overpriced drives and low its prices.Very good review.A question: How many Hitachi drives will be lauched with Perpendicular recording like this and what capacities?
Justin Case - Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - link
Higher areal density means more data can be read per rotation, so it could even be faster in terms of STR. But 7200 RPM drives will still have higher latency than 10k models, of course. The only way to overcome that would be to add more heads (ex., 2 per platter).bkiserx7 - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
...wonder what a perpindicular raptor will do one day?crimson117 - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
Attack prey from right angles?cruzer - Monday, March 19, 2007 - link
On page 10, "As stated in the article, we believe leaving AAM and NCQ turned provides the best experience with this drive."Do you mean turned on or off?
tuteja1986 - Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - link
I really want 3 of them for raid 5 setup :)