Samsung 1TB F1 vs Western Digital 1TB GP vs Hitachi 7k1000

sailorman · Post by **sailorman** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:49 am

hmmm... if this is correct, the MTBF of Samsung SpinPoint F1 HD103UJ is 600.000 running hours, while WD Caviar GP WD10EACS is 1.200.000..!

PASware · Post by **PASware** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:53 am

sailorman wrote:i 'm looking for HDDs to built a RAID 5 array of total storage capacity around 2TB.
i was reading the whole topic here for an hour, trying to find out what kind of HDDs is the best and i have no concluded yet.

Finally, is the Samsung SpinPoint F1 HD103UJ (1 TB - intern - 3.5" - SATA-300 - 7200 rpm - Buffer: 32 MB) the best available HDD today, from reliability/speed/noise point of view?

the cost here in Germany is 269 Euro (~380$) eachone
and limited availability.

It depends on what you want to do with it. If you want tot use it your just files, backups, this Samsung wil be your drive. But if you want to you use it as a server, like mysql, it will not be the fastest, because Samsung lakes a bit behind on that.
Pure transferrate: Samsung rocks.

sailorman wrote:hmmm... if this is correct, the MTBF of Samsung SpinPoint F1 HD103UJ is 600.000 running hours, while WD Caviar GP WD10EACS is 1.200.000..!

600.000 hours is still quite alot. That is 25.000 days or ~68 years.

The WD should work for about 140 years, LOL.

KuniD · Post by **KuniD** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:13 am

SileX wrote:For the first time in history, available here at SIX retailers:

SAMSUNG SpinPoint F1 (HD103UJ), 1.0TB
available immediately
The dealer has this product on stock
http://en.toppreise.ch/prod_117902.html

Now, the fun has just started!

Has anyone ordered from any of these dealers? Wierd how there's a dozen stores in Switzerland who has them but no where else...

If they do have them in stock I'm not sure which of them delivers to the UK, anyone know?

zzombi · Post by **zzombi** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:33 am

I am not sure the Samsungs aren't among the better ones in database patterns too, as well as mutithreading and file copy. Xbitlabs have detailed analises. The problem isn't so much performance, but reliability. That is the most important HDD parameter, at least for me, followed by noise and cosumption (or temperature).

It's worrying that in some Samsung official pdfs they say "this drive is designed for an average of 5 years use". I don't understand that.

At post -5, the relation isn't linear, but closer to square. Ie 4 times platter density, twice linear read speed.

Samsung also has a line called S250 with exptremely low idle power, on paper, bettering WD GP. Around 3W. Possibly 5400rpm?

Are WDs really more reliable?

As an end note WD marketing copied Samsung's with a perfid duality: GP=Green Power but also Grand Prix (as in Formula 1).

sheninat0r · Post by **sheninat0r** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:08 am

zzombi wrote:As an end note WD marketing copied Samsung's with a perfid duality: GP=Green Power but also Grand Prix (as in Formula 1).

Seems more like a coincidence to me, but you have quite a sharp eye.

xilencer · Post by **xilencer** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:55 am

Real shame WD went over the top with the power saving on these GP drives, unloading the heads after only 5 seconds idling? I wish WD had just brought the 5400rpm from the 2.5" market, they should have left the slow self destruct feature behind. From what I've gathered the APM feature (which enables unload) is impossible to disable (as usual). I'm going to stay clear of this series if looking for a system drive, unless WD releases a tool to disable APM (that would be the day!)

Speaking of unloading, has Samsung followed WD and licensed that tech from Hitachi for the F1 series or are they still using CSS (Contact Start Stop) like Seagate?

From my point of view Hitachi brings the best system drives currently, performance is great as ever and quality has been top notch from them recently. Also, I'm blown away by their AAM which is second to none. It's between Hitachi and WD for me this time and as the GP knocks itself fresh out, buying a system drive now is a no-brainer for me (thanks a lot WD). My next system drive is set to be a P7K500. The single platter 250GB SATA model is already in stock here, 500GB coming in next week. I still find the GP the most attractive pure storage/backup drive though.

PASware · Post by **PASware** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:20 am

WD has made a mistake.

The GP disk is to slow. They should have made 2 kinds op 1TB drives. One like they have launched now, a 5400rpm disk with all kinds of power saving things and a full speed 1TB 7200rpm drive that's as fast as a Hitachi or Seagate 1TB disk.

It's nice that WD concerns with energy consumption, but the difference between 6w and 9w idle isn't so big. You could save that difference with a beter efficiÃ«nt PSU, and have an overall faster computer.

sailorman · Post by **sailorman** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:48 am

PASwore wrote:

It depends on what you want to do with it. If you want tot use it your just files, backups, this Samsung wil be your drive. But if you want to you use it as a server, like mysql, it will not be the fastest, because Samsung lakes a bit behind on that.
Pure transferrate: Samsung rocks.

Of course i don't want to spend ~1000euro just for file backup!

This RAID array will be used as a server (with 2-3 clients) for movies / music / HD videos and also as the main PC system for video proccessing and other heavy applications and as HTPC. So, i 'm looking for drives which will be reliable and fast first of all and quite enough.

They should have made 2 kinds op 1TB drives. One like they have launched now, a 5400rpm disk with all kinds of power saving things and a full speed 1TB 7200rpm drive that's as fast as a Hitachi or Seagate 1TB disk.

Usually WD acts like that, as most companies do. They have 2 or more series of HDDs at the same capacity. For example they have in market 4 different series of 500GB HDDs. The best is WD5000ABYS, designed for RAID arrays, with 5 years warranty. The cost is 113 euro while its cheapest disk is the WD Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS, costs only 89 euro. There is also the WD Caviar SE WD5000AAJS (96 euro) and one more model.

The same happens in every other capacity except 1TB. Try to compare WD Caviar SE16 WD7500AAKS with the WD RE2 WD7500AYYS (price difference more than 30 euro) or WD Caviar SE WD2500JS with WD RE WD2500YS (also there 3 more different models at the same capacity and different prices).

I guess i have to wait the new WD 1TB disk, named
WHY 10 EASJDGYEHQHEHQ!!!!

zzombi · Post by **zzombi** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:15 am

PASware wrote:WD has made a mistake.

The GP disk is to slow. They should have made 2 kinds op 1TB drives.

Has it occured to anyone they pulled the 5400rpm speed exactly because they cannot make a 1TB 7200rpm drive right now? The "Green Power" feature is thus just a collateral effect, exploited by marketing. Perhaps that is why they tried to hide it beyond nice slogans as intellispeed.

The 1200000MTBF is customary to server/RAID editions of various drive brands, unfortunately at extra price.

WD hdds seem quite balanced overall, and lately are among the cheapest drives. It's just they're not the newest tech, but if indeed more reliable it pays off. Did they switch to FDB bearings?

Kaleid · Post by **Kaleid** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:19 am

Samsung F1 750GB seems available in Sweden.

I might pick one up, but unfortunaly I've had some trouble with my 501LJ (clicking noise)

Edit: Seems that a 640GB model will be available. Two platters and to me highly interesting

sailorman · Post by **sailorman** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:28 am

The 1200000MTBF is customary to server/RAID editions of various drive brands, unfortunately at extra price.

HDDs with 1.200.000 MTBF are more expensive than the normal disks but they have 5 years warranty.
So, the safety of your valuable data is given!!! especially in RAID arrays. You cant lose anything and you can replace your disk with a new one free of charge!!
very important!!

and im talking for home users....

sailorman · Post by **sailorman** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:33 am

zzombi wrote: Has it occured to anyone they pulled the 5400rpm speed exactly because they cannot make a 1TB 7200rpm drive right now? The "Green Power" feature ....

seems to be a big bulls@&*t to me...!

No offense, but this is my opinion and obviously WD is not ready to produce 1TB 7200rpm disks right now...

gb115b · Post by **gb115b** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:55 pm

Wd also has a Raid Edition 1TB announced...no idea if it'll match up with the non raid edition....

also has anyone actually got their hands on a samsung 1TB yet??

its getting ridiculous...

i think the WD will still be quieter in idle esp if the samsung is 7200RPM..

(i'm basing that on the fact that its quiter in idle compared with a 500GB samsung...)

zzombi · Post by **zzombi** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:05 pm

gb115b wrote:
i think the WD will still be quieter in idle esp if the samsung is 7200RPM..

(i'm basing that on the fact that its quiter in idle compared with a 500GB samsung...)

Almost certain, no 7200 can be as good as a 5400, all other things equal. Like an engine, the more you rev it the more noise you get.

In fact reducing the speed seems like a good move for future hdds. SSDs should become the norm for speedy storage, but for larger volumes slower cheap HDDs will still be good. Right now an 8GB SATA SSD has 60/46MB/s read/write speed and costs 150eur. Considering half a year ago they were much slower and expensive I'd say they're moving on quicker than mech drives.

The most silent F1s are the 1 platters. 24.5dBA on paper, vs 24 for multiplatter WD GPs. The multiplatters F1 are significantly noisier, 27dBA, again on paper.

Vicotnik · Post by **Vicotnik** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:51 pm

PASware wrote:WD has made a mistake.

The GP disk is to slow. They should have made 2 kinds op 1TB drives. One like they have launched now, a 5400rpm disk with all kinds of power saving things and a full speed 1TB 7200rpm drive that's as fast as a Hitachi or Seagate 1TB disk.

It's nice that WD concerns with energy consumption, but the difference between 6w and 9w idle isn't so big. You could save that difference with a beter efficiÃ«nt PSU, and have an overall faster computer.

6W vs. 9W makes all the difference to me. I bought my WD 1TB for storage, OS and apps are on my Raptor. I think most users really would benefit from having two physical HDDs; one for OS/apps, and one or more for downloads and storage. I know I would find it difficult to go back to a single HDD.

None of the storage/download HDDs needs to be very fast, unless the system is used for high thoughput stuff like raw video editing or something.

PASware · Post by **PASware** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:30 am

Vicotnik wrote:
PASware wrote:WD has made a mistake.

The GP disk is to slow. They should have made 2 kinds op 1TB drives. One like they have launched now, a 5400rpm disk with all kinds of power saving things and a full speed 1TB 7200rpm drive that's as fast as a Hitachi or Seagate 1TB disk.

It's nice that WD concerns with energy consumption, but the difference between 6w and 9w idle isn't so big. You could save that difference with a beter efficiÃ«nt PSU, and have an overall faster computer.
6W vs. 9W makes all the difference to me. I bought my WD 1TB for storage, OS and apps are on my Raptor. I think most users really would benefit from having two physical HDDs; one for OS/apps, and one or more for downloads and storage. I know I would find it difficult to go back to a single HDD.

None of the storage/download HDDs needs to be very fast, unless the system is used for high thoughput stuff like raw video editing or something.

Ok, but why does 3w makes the difference for you? You have a very energy efficient setup?

2 harddrives is indeed a big benefit. A "slow" harddrive isn't a big problem for only downloads and storage.

Vicotnik · Post by **Vicotnik** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:50 am

PASware wrote:Ok, but why does 3w makes the difference for you? You have a very energy efficient setup?

Yes. I usually get the most energy efficient components, given that they are good enough performance wise. And the difference is more than 3W if you trust the numbers from StorageReview.
Also my one WD10EACS replaced two HD501LJ in my system.

Luminair · Post by **Luminair** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:40 pm

PASware wrote:
sailorman wrote:hmmm... if this is correct, the MTBF of Samsung SpinPoint F1 HD103UJ is 600.000 running hours, while WD Caviar GP WD10EACS is 1.200.000..!
600.000 hours is still quite alot. That is 25.000 days or ~68 years.

The WD should work for about 140 years, LOL.

ARGHHHHHHH NO THAT IS NOT WHAT MTBF MEANS AT ALL

zzombi · Post by **zzombi** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:53 pm

Luminair wrote:
PASware wrote:
sailorman wrote:hmmm... if this is correct, the MTBF of Samsung SpinPoint F1 HD103UJ is 600.000 running hours, while WD Caviar GP WD10EACS is 1.200.000..!
600.000 hours is still quite alot. That is 25.000 days or ~68 years.

The WD should work for about 140 years, LOL.
ARGHHHHHHH NO THAT IS NOT WHAT MTBF MEANS AT ALL

Yes, that is what it means. Provided the hdds are replaced with new ones after their official life expectancy expires, even if not broken.

I take it the life of the F1 is 5 years, which doesn't sound too encouraging. Anyone read about the officially expected life of the GP?

Luminair · Post by **Luminair** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:39 pm

zzombi wrote: Provided the hdds are replaced with new ones after their official life expectancy expires, even if not broken.

I take it the life of the F1 is 5 years, which doesn't sound too encouraging. Anyone read about the officially expected life of the GP?

You just got a lot closer to the truth by tacking on a lot more information. The guy I replied to has a different understanding of reality than you do.

zzombi · Post by **zzombi** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:51 am

The guy I replied to has a different understanding of reality than you do.

Well, perhaps not after he read my post.

Speaking of closer to truth, it seems the determinant factor in hdd life is bearing wear. In order to simulate this accelerated (high temperature) wear tests are used. Every extra 10C means life cut in half. So low consumption HDDs could have an advantage. I guess FDBs also are more reliable.

But GP has the auto load/unload which looks like a life counter. Provided it's calculated to end just after the "component design life" expires (and also warranty) it shouldn't bother WD, on the contrary, but it should bother us.

Most current HDDs seem to be meant for 5 years LE. Despite this many older HDDs have counted double or even triple that number in power on hours and are still going. This info is also accesible through SMART feature.

Anyway before those 5 years expire they may be already history. I just read they announced a 1.6TB SSD...

http://www.tech-report.net/discussions.x/13624

KuniD · Post by **KuniD** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:39 am

Just received an email from HardwareVersand.de saying they have 50 in stock at 265 euros each (190 pounds).

Also a few other retailers are listing it in stock on Heise, cheapest is 258 euros.

I'm ordering one through HardwareVersand as I want to get a few other bits.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:12 am

Just received an email from HardwareVersand.de saying they have 50 in stock at 265 euros each (190 pounds).

50 what........ Cats, Turtle's, or Drives, if so what variety.

--------

MTBF is bullshit, it should be taken with a pinch of salt, and has no "real life" bearing as its done in a lab under controlled conditions and doesnt account for the drive being handled by idiots (warehouse staff, delivery persons and end users).

Andy

KuniD · Post by **KuniD** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:15 am

Samsung HD103UJ

PASware · Post by **PASware** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:03 am

andyb wrote:
Just received an email from HardwareVersand.de saying they have 50 in stock at 265 euros each (190 pounds).
50 what........ Cats, Turtle's, or Drives, if so what variety.

--------

MTBF is bullshit, it should be taken with a pinch of salt, and has no "real life" bearing as its done in a lab under controlled conditions and doesnt account for the drive being handled by idiots (warehouse staff, delivery persons and end users).

Andy

Yup, MTBF is bullshit.

Schroinx · Post by **Schroinx** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:51 am

Mean Time Between Failures.

It is a statistical number, that is calculated on the basis of the MTBF of each component in the drive. IT DOES NOT REFLECT A LIFETIME TEST of the drive.

Basically it is about probability. But some drives will fail before and some later. If you got one of the drives that fail before, your just out of luck, becuse MTFB does not gurantee that the individual drive will run that long. Not does it take into account how it is handled after leaving the factory.

In a fail-safe system, the drives should be swapped before they reach the MTBF number, because as they comes closer, the probability of a failure raises. However if one want a fail safe system there is no substitute for a backup.

Did I mention the fact that failsafe systems does not exists? It is all about designing a system where the probability of a failure is acceptable compared to the cost of the system and the requirements that one have to the system.

silentbobbo · Post by **silentbobbo** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:09 am

Maybe these Samsungs are starting to trickle in, but other than that one review copy, I have yet to hear of any end user actually receiving one of these. I am just sick of the 6-month hand-job from Samsung. I have decided to buy the WD now, even though I dislike their sneaking 5400-7200 rpm marketing, the fact is I just want a reliable drive for near-line storage of downloaded video. I am prepared to believe that drive reliability is correlated with the number of rotations the bearings endure, and also the temperature of the drive, and the WD is a big win on these and also more appropriate for my needs. Samsung's marketing department are accomplished liars even in the field of marketing. With all the delays on the Spinpoint F1 I have to again question if there were manufacturing or reliability issues. If anyone here ever gets one of these, please test it out for me for the next 6 - 12 months, and let me know if its reliable or not. At that point I may be ready for a second TB.

SileX · Post by **SileX** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:26 am

You can purchase NOW from many shops. Check it out:

http://forums.storagereview.net/index.p ... &start=150

zzombi · Post by **zzombi** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:59 am

Schroinx wrote:IT DOES NOT REFLECT A LIFETIME TEST of the drive.

In a fail-safe system, the drives should be swapped before they reach the MTBF number, because as they comes closer, the probability of a failure raises.

Even a lot earlier than that. For the 70 years MTBF of the F1 you need to replace them every 5 years. If you chose to replace them later the MTBF is different (can only be lower). So we need both values: MTBF and LE. In fact the MTBF=f(LE) graph would be even nicer.

The LE of the GP may or may not be longer than F1, despite a longer MTBF (and for the Raid editions only?).

Of course these numbers get accurate as the number of tested samples increases, acting more as limits. It won't warant your single HDD, as you said, but it's more than nothing, at least for me.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:02 am

The 750GB F1's are in stock at komplett.co.uk with the 1TB models not far behind.

http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/kl.aspx?bn=10096

Likewise at OCUK.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productli ... &subid=940

Same again at Scan and MicroDirect, although they dont even mention the 1TB model.

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Products ... bnails=yes
http://www.microdirect.co.uk/productlis ... =10#Paging

Still not even listed at Dabs or eBuyer

Well the 750GBs are quite widely available, and the 1TB models on the horizon.

Andy

Samsung 1TB F1 vs Western Digital 1TB GP vs Hitachi 7k1000

F1 thoughts

Re: F1 thoughts