Buying Seagate 200 drive, short on time!

acaurora · Post by **acaurora** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:52 pm

Hmmm I wonder if the SATA 200 is quieter than the PATA 200... *HMMM

It'll be a while before I get a new HDD. By then there'll be 16 MB cache HDDs left and right

nannygoat · Post by **nannygoat** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:14 pm

I just performed a short listening test to establish the winner of the barracuda ATA IV vs. ST3200822A showdown;
Iiiiiiiiiin the red corner we have, mounted on sorbothane and weighing in at 60gigs, the 'cuda ata IV. Despite recent warnings from speedfan of a raw read error rate of 56, it still looks like a contender.
Iiiiiin the bluuuuuue corner, also mounted on sorbothane, the fresh young tyke ST3200822A is looking good at a solid 200gigs, and considerably faster than its ancient predecessor. However, subtle jibes from the enemy camp about its jarring and vulgar product name ST3200822A might get the better of it in this contest.

Seek noise: The cuda IV has taken a battering here. The low-frequency vibrations of extended seek operations make that unfortunate 'grinding' sound, which is absent from the newer drive. Seek noise is still audible from the ST.... but not of the same character or magnitude.

Whine: Inconclusive. On powering down the cuda IV, the system sounds much quieter, but I think much of this is due to coupling of vibrations to the case. I think that for a proper evaluation I'd have to test the drives suspended.

Without elastic suspension however, the unofficial champ is the hard drive in the blue shorts.....

Post by **MikeC** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:34 pm

acaurora -- I think your acoustic results are inconclusive because you did not have them mounted the same way. This is CRITICAL if you want a fair comparison.

nannygoat -- It's curious that the IV has louder seeks when AAM on the newer drive is disabled?!?

I think there's little question that 8mb cache and 100G/platter density will trounce the old 'cuda IVs... but the noise results here are surprising.

There is a simple way to equalize test conditions --

1) unscrew both drives from chassis & sit them atop a big block of soft foam. Almost any kind will do as long as it is not too hard.

2) listen to each one by one rather than jumping back and forth (A/B) between them. Do the latter only when you've listened to each one in turn a few times.

3) Hold each one in your hand while running a drive benchmark -- this will give you a pretty good handle on how much vibration it has.

4) Also listen to the quality of the noise while holding it in your hand close to you ear, moving it a bit to different angles.

lazyguns · Post by **lazyguns** » Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:49 pm

Some more info. I assume the settings as regards performance and acoustic noise are contained in the firmware. I have noted the following :

1 x 200 IDE config code A5D-07 firmware 3.01
1 x 200 SATA as above
( both drives bought a few months ago - both quiet. )

2 x 200 IDE config code A5C-07 firmware 3.01
( just bought - will test and confirm results )

All the above run the 3.01 firmware and have very similar configs.
I hope the new drives may be even quieter.
In contrast the 2 x 160 SATA have noisy seeks and very diff configs:

1 x 160 SATA configcode SYR-04 firmware 3.06
1 x 160 SATA configcode VEH-03 firmware 3.18

so I would recommend getting a drive with the 3.01 firmware. It looks like seagate have reverted to the original firmware (.01).
will compare the 2 new drives to the older 200s in a few days.

acaurora · Post by **acaurora** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:19 pm

Yes, Mike. I am aware of the inconclusiveness of my test. But at least it was *some* information that may be of use to someone out there...

I will see if I can try another test, although I'll have to rip the 160 GB 7200.7 out of my parents' computer. I'm sure they wont mind... *dodges the fiery blazing eyes of his parents*

nannygoat · Post by **nannygoat** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:31 pm

Mike: I now have both my Seagates suspended similarly to:

And I have to say the seek noise is still more noticeable with the older drive. Perhaps I have a bad sample or the bearings have worn more than would be expected for a ~1 year old drive, but the new drive is definitely quieter. The sound is of a lower frequency, and more 'grumbly' than the 7200.7 - is the drive head assembly heavier in the old 'cudas?

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:32 pm

Storagereview have done some testing with three hard drive models who have been available for a longer time, just to see if there are some differences between the old and the new ones. One of them is the Seagate Barracuda 7200.7, 160 GB vs 200 GB. The noise has changed very little from 40.4 to 39.7 dBA (idle).

The two other are Hitachi Deskstar and Western Digital Caviar. WD have made a BIG improvement by changing the type of bearing in the motor:

The industry-wide migration to FDB motors has contributed to drastically-reduced hard-drive idle noise. Even Western Digital, a relative latecomer to the game, is well on its way to exclusive FDB motor use. Objectively measured, the difference between a standard BB motor and a properly implemented FDB setup is huge- the WD2500JD drops from a relatively-audible 46.1 dB/A @ 18mm down to a whisper-quiet 41.0 dB/A. Subjectively speaking, the drop is truly a night-and-day difference.

bchung · Post by **bchung** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 4:02 pm

zoob wrote:

You should have ordered something else to bump it over the $200 mark, where they give you free shipping!

Now let's wait and see if TD actually sends the rebate.

Lol you'll be waiting a while.