Seagate have introduced their first hard drive which supports the new SATA 3.0 specification. The Barracuda XT is the Seagate's first drive to use the new interface, which has a theoretical bandwidth of 6Gb/s - double that of the SATA 2.0 (3Gb/s) specification. The drive offers 2TB of storage space, using four platters, according to Seagate (via Techspot).The 7200 RPM drive has a sustained data rate of 138MB/s – the fastest speed achieved by a 7200 RPM drive, Seagate claims. The 64MB cache provides "screaming burst rate speeds and improve[s] overall performance," according to their website. The drive is backward compatible with both the SATA 3Gb/s interface and the SATA 1.5Gb/s interface, although if you don't have a motherboard compatible with SATA 3.0 you're probably better off buying a slower, but cheaper 2TB hard drive if you don't plan on upgrading the motherboard anytime soon.
Aimed at enthusiasts, Seagate said "[the] Barracuda XT offers capacity coupled with high speed which will definitely appeal to performance enthusiasts in video editing, multi-media publishing and, of course, PC gaming." According to an article by Techspot, the hard drive will have an MSRP of $299, potentially making it appealing to those looking for a large, fast storage device to complement an SSD.
Whether or not the new SATA interface will convince enthusiasts to spend out remains to be seen, considering that SSDs have come down in price (a 100GB SSD would have cost around £300 eight months ago, compared to less than £200 now). You can find all the specifications of the Barracuda XT on the Seagate website.
o.0. What the fudge would you do with 20TB of storage o.0
it aint worth the extra storage for HD Pr0n if you ask me.
standard def is good enough.
p.s. although from time to time it would be nice in HD. mostly depends on how good it is if it's worth having in HD... vast majority is better off in XviD format.
because almost NO ONE could go from a 40GB to a 2TB. it would not make sense simply because if 40GB was 'good enough' for you for this long there would be no reason you would EVER use 2TB.
because 40GB is quite small even if you only download XviD stuff it would fill up very fast. so 40GB might be decent for MP3 related stuff but anything video 40GB would have been to small even 5-ish years ago.
Uhh..
It's 6 Gb/s and 3 Gb/s. And yes, existing technology is *already* approaching the 3Gb/s limit. Just look at any benchmark for Intel's latest drives. They are close to 2.5 Gb/s.
He wasn't talking about SSDs.
It's 6 Gb/s and 3 Gb/s. And yes, existing technology is *already* approaching the 3Gb/s limit. Just look at any benchmark for Intel's latest drives. They are close to 2.5 Gb/s.
Do you have reading issues? I'm not talking about super fast SSD drives that might benefit from 6 Gb/s transfer rates (FYI the article talked about GB before not Gb). I'm asking what good 6 Gb/s transfer rates will do in combination with a conventional 7200 rpm harddiskdrive / HDD.
The entire article is about a new desktop sized HDD, so I have no idea why you're brining SSDs into this in the first place.
Last edited by .Neo on 22 Sep 2009 - 20:37
Also, as even traditional magnetic HDDs achieve higher densities their speeds are also increasing by a lot. A 1TB drive can saturate over 100MB/s transfer. I'd imagine a 2TB drive does well over 150MB/s in a single drive configuration. So there is a need for it
It's 6 Gb/s and 3 Gb/s. And yes, existing technology is *already* approaching the 3Gb/s limit. Just look at any benchmark for Intel's latest drives. They are close to 2.5 Gb/s.
Do you have reading issues? I'm not talking about super fast SSD drives that might benefit from 6 Gb/s transfer rates (FYI the article talked about GB before not Gb). I'm asking what good 6 Gb/s transfer rates will do in combination with a conventional 7200 rpm harddiskdrive / HDD.
The entire article is about a new desktop sized HDD, so I have no idea why you're brining SSDs into this in the first place.
Spindle speed isnt the only factor affecting speed. I would assume thats its a matter of months before someone makes drives with 1TB platters etc etc.
Also, as even traditional magnetic HDDs achieve higher densities their speeds are also increasing by a lot. A 1TB drive can saturate over 100MB/s transfer. I'd imagine a 2TB drive does well over 150MB/s in a single drive configuration. So there is a need for it
Thanks for that explanation.
As drives cannot even come close to saturating the 3 GB/s bandwidth on SATA 2, I really don't see the point of SATA 3. Unless of course it comes with some shiny new features that help in other ways.
As drives cannot even come close to saturating the 3 GB/s bandwidth on SATA 2, I really don't see the point of SATA 3. Unless of course it comes with some shiny new features that help in other ways.
im not sure what the big difference is
but ive stuck a SATA3 drive in a 2 and 3 slot, and it did perform quicker on the 3, despite drives not nearing the speeds of 3.0
SATA2 is 3 Gb/sec. Not 3 GB/sec. SATA3 is 6 Gb/sec. Not 6 GB/sec.
Existing drives are getting close to hitting the SATA2 limit of 3 Gb/sec, so something like SATA3 is needed.
Intel's latest SSD gets over 2 Gb/sec.
A SATA2 or SATA3 motherboard is required to give it the leg room needed, as SATA1 isn't fast enough, as it has a limit of 1.5 Gb/sec (not 1.5 GB/sec).
Bytes are not bits! B is not b!
Even today's best hard drives top out at around 140MB/sec sustained, so in theory even SATA1's 1.5Gb/sec provides enough there.
The point here is that although 6Gb/sec is a necessary requirement for the future and SSDs, it's pointless for mechanical hard drives that are barely even saturating SATA1 at 1.5Gb/sec.
Last edited by Phemo on 22 Sep 2009 - 18:17
SATA2 is 3 Gb/sec. Not 3 GB/sec. SATA3 is 6 Gb/sec. Not 6 GB/sec.
Existing drives are getting close to hitting the SATA2 limit of 3 Gb/sec, so something like SATA3 is needed.
Intel's latest SSD gets over 2 Gb/sec.
A SATA2 or SATA3 motherboard is required to give it the leg room needed, as SATA1 isn't fast enough, as it has a limit of 1.5 Gb/sec (not 1.5 GB/sec).
Bytes are not bits! B is not b!
Fixed.
I know what the difference is, just with a million different things going through my head I tend to miss the mistakes which are less obvious.
If the rest of my article is still of poor quality you can report any issues or contact me or an editor via PM. I will always aim to get back to people the same day I receive a PM.
because i typically don't like paying more than around 100 dollars (give or take a little) for a HDD since that's usually the sweet spot for alot of storage space at a reasonable price. because once you start going to much over the 100 dollar mark, it seems like price goes up alot where space only increases somewhat minimally.
p.s. although my current total space of 1.9TB is getting pretty much full-ish because it's starting to get a little harder (because of all the HD stuff) to FREE up space for other stuff i download. so one of these 2GB would give me alot of breathing room again.
And that 500GB figure includes ISOs of all my "can't-afford-to-lose/scratch" CDs/DVDs.
Or is it just that people keep piling everything on their hard drives?
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.