Fastest Notebook HD is coming!!! Hitachi 7K200

[tomh009]

The series naming convention uses the maximum drive size, so, for example, the older 60, 80 and 100 GB drives are all in the 7K100 series (but with separate, more specific orderable part numbers).

Here are the 7K200 part numbers:
200 GB - HTS722020K9A300
160 GB - HTS722016K9A300
120 GB - HTS722012K9A300
100 GB - HTS722010K9A300
80 GB - HTS722080K9A300

[Antioch]

Thanks Tom!

BTW - Let me know when your new machine arrives

[tomh009]

I'm sure you'll hear about it.

It's taking a bit longer than it should. I placed the order internally, but then it appears that it took about two weeks for that order to make its way through our company to Lenovo ...

[hoya]

I just noticed that the max areal density numbers are highest for the 200gb 7K200 which would affect performance somewhat: 164 v. 132 Gbits/sq inch:
http://www.hitachigst.com

now I'm curious to know if my 120GB 7200.2 has a lower areal density than seagate's 160gb drive.

[tomh009]

The 80 GB, 120 GB and 160 GB versions of the 7200.2 have identical areal densities. How is that? The 160 uses four heads on two disk platters (ie 40 GB per side of platter), the 80 uses two heads on a single platter, and the 120 uses three heads on two platters (ie one of the platters is single-sided).

So the transfer rates for the 120 GB version should be identical to the 160 GB one ...

[hoya]

The 80 GB, 120 GB and 160 GB versions of the 7200.2 have identical areal densities. How is that? The 160 uses four heads on two disk platters (ie 40 GB per side of platter), the 80 uses two heads on a single platter, and the 120 uses three heads on two platters (ie one of the platters is single-sided).

So the transfer rates for the 120 GB version should be identical to the 160 GB one ...

that is good logic and seems plausible but take a look at this. according to the date sheet for the 7200.1, the only difference between the 80gb and 100gb drives is that the 80gb has 3 heads while the 100gb drive has 4 heads:
http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datashe ... us7200.pdf

However, those same drives turn in very different performance figures in this chart:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage25.html

could there be any other explanation for the vastly different performance among those two drives?

edit: Hitachi admits that its 80gb 7k100 has an areal density of 66 while the 100gb version has an areal density of 81 so perhaps Seagate is doing the same but not admitting to it?

[tomh009]

The performance numbers don't really make sense in the context with the Seagate specifications. I don't really know what's going on, though.

[Antioch]

Nor do I - but what I'd like to know is when the 100Gb models will come out?

I want to get one! The largest capacity on a single platter = most size, best temp and noise profiles =)

[stylinexpat]

I just ordered my 200GB HDD from Newegg. Can't wait for it to arrive. Am getting a new laptop soon and am planning on using this HDD in my new lapptop. This new HDD is not yet available here in Taiwan which is a bit on the odd side. This time the US received them before Taiwan did.

[brentpresley]

Man it's been a while since I was around the forums.


For all the naysayers EARLY on when I claimed this drive would rock, I would like to point you to this official review:

http://www.storagereview.com/HTS722020K9A00.sr

That said, the story remains the drive's single-user performance. In the end, the Hitachi Travelstar 7K200 blows away the competition by margins seldom seen in the hard drive world. Though it does not come cheaply, the Travelstar's showing is so superior to that of any other drive's that it stands as the only choice for those striving to attain true desktop-level performance from a portable system.

Like I said almost 6 months ago, b/c of the increased platter density AND perpendicular recording technology, this is the THE DRIVE to have for anyone wanting maximum performance from their laptop.


BTW - it's approaching $1 per GB here:
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe ... e=10005818

[Tony Chan]

From their specification, the 100Gb version seems to be **slightly** faster ( than the 160/120/60 gb version ), less noisy ( than the 2 platters version ), and probably consume a bit less power too.

http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib. ... 0_Spec.pdf

[brainpicker]

...BTW - it's approaching $1 per GB here:
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe ... e=10005818

Yes, but I wouldn't buy from them. ZZF has nice pricing, but the true mark of a business is how they treat you when there is a problem. Just try to reach a human at ANY hour there. I never can. And when the product you order is defective or way different than described you are almost out on an island. I've been waiting 6 weeks after the return was received at their warehouse to get my money back ($600) for a mis-advertised purchase, and though they have received the box they refuse to return any of my calls, answer my e-mails, or post the credit to my bank. In today's world this is unacceptable! But then, I guess if most people were concerned with anything else BUT price, Wal-Mart would not be the world's largest retailer. I suppose I'm asking too much from modern retailing?

- Yak

[erik]

Yes, but I wouldn't buy from them. ZZF has nice pricing, but the true mark of a business is how they treat you when there is a problem.

agreed.   newegg currently has them for the same price ($204.99) plus another $5 for shipping.

when i ordered mine, it was around 2am.   by noon they had already shipped the drive.   in that time i noticed that the price dropped $10 so i talked (typed) to a newegg CSR asking if they could refund the difference.   less than a minute later i get an email from newegg showing a $10 credit to my card.   now that is customer service.