The drive may not have an exposed PCB on the bottom so putting it on a carpet might not actually pose a significant problem. Since the matter's come up, I'm sort of curious about the construction of the casing anyway given the fact that its a new helium drive. The construction methods we're accustomed to may no longer apply.
More importantly, that's really nice looking carpeting! I like the color and pattern combination a lot. It also looks pretty dense so it'd resist the entry of dirt into the fibers which would make it a lot more of a pain to properly clean. ESD be damned, carpet like that NEEDS to appear in more hardware reviews.
The PCB is exposed on the other side of the casing though it has no components mounted on that exposed side. This being said, show of hands how many of you guys wear an ESD bracelet every time you're touching a PC component or "safely remove" USB sticks?
10 Terabytes. I remember in high school, during the early '90's looking through a computer parts catalog and seeing a 2 Gigabyte hard drive for $2,000, and thinking that no one would ever need that much storage space! How far we've come!
Since 10 TB in the desktop space is unprecedented, the real question is how this will compare with the Enterprise drive, that does not cost much more. The NAS and video drives really aren't designed for "working" storage, but the Enterprise should be able to do anything this one can, and more.
Oh, and halfway down, you have "when the cache is excausted." Should be "exhausted."
I remember buying a 3GB Quantum hard drive when 256MB and 500MB were the norm for my MacPro 6100. It wasn't $2000, more like $500, it was late 90s. I't was amazing feeling holding that marvel of technology and thinking "man, I will never fill this up".
I'm really wondering how much media storage will increase in the next 20 years. Most of consumer media storage is pictures/videos from mobile devices and downloaded movies/tv from the internet (legal or otherwise).
Now of course, we'll start seeing more 4K content, and that will significantly increase the storage requirements for video. But other than that, what will really increase our storage consumption? I guess what I'm saying is that I expect the growth to be pretty linear and predictable over the next 20 years.
Videos and pictures are still limited by the quality of the optics not much about the bitrate. No matter the space any of those pales in comparison to what your eyes see.
In the land of no internet or multimedia, Gigabyte size was a ton of space. Most people would only deal with small bats. word or txt files- With the advent of internet, jpg's, mp3, 24-32bit color space need skyrocketed.
Oh, NOW I see what you mean. Yeah, that big C is new and does seem like a stupid marketing thing. "Lets capitalize one letter, it will make the product seem cool". Next year, we can officially change our name to seaGate :P
I am sure they will. Generally, with any storage tier, they go performance first (Barracuda) then follow up with cheaper, quieter models for normal storage needs like NAS, backups, htpc, or just people that dont require as much speed.
Please tell me you all did a deep-dive on GPU Boost 3.0; nobody else has done one yet. NVIDIA coyly remarked that it has "water-cooling optimizations" and most users are showing that the card actually reaches its max core clock speed at around 50-60C. Any higher and your core starts to drop in ~13MHz increments--so, even at 65C load, your GPU has reduced its maximum boost clock.
In other words, if you have a very cool card, NVIDIA allows it to run at very high frequencies consistently.
You're completely right. Until Ryan catches up on his GPU review backlog Ganesh shouldn't be allowed to post about storage systems, Anton shouldn't be allowed to post new articles, E. Fylladitakis shouldn't be allowed to write about case or PSU performance, etc.
You do realize that 80%-90% of cloud storage is cold storage that doesnt need speed or performance, just lots and lots of capacity for cheap. HDD's are going to be around for a good while.
There's no reason they couldn't design a cold storage system using SSDs that very occasionally wakes and refreshes the drive before powering back down. Plus commercial grade SSDs are more resilient to begin with than an entry level consumer drive.
Other than that, yes, HDDs are here for a while yet. But in consumer systems they're increasingly becoming secondary storage only, and even that is becoming less essential for a lot of regular people as time goes on. I'll still need a secondary HDD or two for the foreseeable future, myself.
Really? I have seen a lot of benchmarks that don't agree. On average looks like it falls between a 970 and a 980. Don't get me wrong that's still very impressive. But at $300 for the 6GB it's hardly earth shattering. Hopefully a decent aftermarket model will cost around the same and OC a lot better. I think the 1070 launch was more impressive compared to other cards in its price range.
"Consumers"? Presumably this is targeted at someone who just buys the biggest without thinking about it. At $500, it isn't targeted at someone who doesn't have a ton of SSD.
Reliability is nice, but since you can get 5 3TB (7200rpm) drives for $350 and put them in RAID mode, I'd take that over any single drive (and RAIDing big drives is always more expensive than small drives). I guess the lifespan argument should work if you don't think there is going to be much improvement in spinning hard drives (no point in buying longevity on anything obeying Moore's law), but that only suggests going cheaper in the knowledge that you will simply replace them with SSDs.
I just hope that anyone who buys one of these realizes that if their time is worth the ease of a single huge drive, their time is doubly worth the backup (and no, RAIDing a bunch of small drives isn't a backup. Although plugging a bunch of USBs and making your backup a separate RAID drive would make a lot of sense. Backups sit around and are likely threatened by stiction).
True, but if your limitation is the number of bays you have, then you would want 10TB (granted if you need that much space). Using RAID 5 no matter the size of the disk, you lose space close to the size of one of your disks. For example in a 6 bay NAS, 10TBx6 @RAID 5 is about 50TB usable. 3TBx6 @ RAID 5 will net you 15TB. Now thats not including a spare which would lose you another disk worth of space.
The space would be nice but just as a point of pride I don't think I could use a drive sporting that staggering 0.74 MB/s 4K read... even as a storage drive. /Spoiled by SSD
Yeah, because reading sequential data really requires a high 4k random performance?? You use a storage drive to store crap like HD video. As LM pointed out, that's completely irrelevant for a mass storage drive. If the sequential read speed is high enough to read a UHD video or two, you're good.
I'm going to come right out and say this is almost totally useless. The larger the drive is, the more data you have at risk should it fail. The way to protect against that is RAID. But if you're going to RAID a lot of drives together then the high capacity of each individual drive becomes a liability since the more space you have to recover, should one fail, will make for insane rebuild times to recover the array. That's when high performance becomes more important. But these are relatively very slow performing devices and as you use space the performance continues to degrade. There really isn't a sensible consumer solution for these problems. And if you have lots of media to store and don't have enterprise class resources to do it with you are pretty much out in the cold. For enterprise, this is maybe feasible but if you are a consumer buying this you will also be buying lots of headaches and new problems down the road.
Guy above is right. RAID is only for uptime. Rebuild time is pretty non-issue as it will manifest itself as a degraded performance during the rebuild. Regular backups is still compulsory as it will protect for data corruption due to human error, virus or hardware/firmware.
They need to make some monster laptop hard drives, for geeks like me who have a dual-drive SSD+HDD setup. What's the coolest, most efficient 2.5" HDD so far?
That is a good question. Not sure, but it seems to me that they really gimp hybrid drives with lame SSD portions like 8gb, oh boy. It would be great to have a real SSD (as in decent performance and size) connected to a disk based drive that could be used in laptops with one drive bay.
Well, I guess HDD manufacturers can be happy for once as well. Ever since that "flood" excuse they had 5 years ago, they seem to have stopped cutting prices per GB almost completely. This 10TB is about twice as expensive as the 5TB I got 2.5 years ago now. No deal.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
Back to Article
damianrobertjones - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I wonder how much static that carpet produces?retrospooty - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Anandtech's ESD practices follow the James Brown method... "Static, HAAAAAY.... Dont start none, there wont be none"BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
The drive may not have an exposed PCB on the bottom so putting it on a carpet might not actually pose a significant problem. Since the matter's come up, I'm sort of curious about the construction of the casing anyway given the fact that its a new helium drive. The construction methods we're accustomed to may no longer apply.More importantly, that's really nice looking carpeting! I like the color and pattern combination a lot. It also looks pretty dense so it'd resist the entry of dirt into the fibers which would make it a lot more of a pain to properly clean. ESD be damned, carpet like that NEEDS to appear in more hardware reviews.
BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Ahem...*less of a pain to properly clean. I hate Monday mornings. >.<retrospooty - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Agreed. The worst Mondays carry over to Tuesday. ;)BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I was within a day or so. That's close enough.close - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
The PCB is exposed on the other side of the casing though it has no components mounted on that exposed side. This being said, show of hands how many of you guys wear an ESD bracelet every time you're touching a PC component or "safely remove" USB sticks?close - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
And more important than that, why is there no reference to Helium in any technical sheet available on the Seagate site for the this new series of drives? Are they ashamed of this? o_Ohttp://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content...
http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content...
http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content...
I see every review out there insists that these are helium drives but only the Enterprise class drives appear to use this tech.
http://www.seagate.com/search/?keyword=helium&...
Devo2007 - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Never havee, and AFAIK I've never destroyed a component due to ESD.JKJK - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link
i've killed a few ram sticks due to ESD. That's what made me buy an antistatic mat and bracelet in the first place :Pjardows2 - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
10 Terabytes. I remember in high school, during the early '90's looking through a computer parts catalog and seeing a 2 Gigabyte hard drive for $2,000, and thinking that no one would ever need that much storage space! How far we've come!Since 10 TB in the desktop space is unprecedented, the real question is how this will compare with the Enterprise drive, that does not cost much more. The NAS and video drives really aren't designed for "working" storage, but the Enterprise should be able to do anything this one can, and more.
Oh, and halfway down, you have "when the cache is excausted." Should be "exhausted."
Zak - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I remember buying a 3GB Quantum hard drive when 256MB and 500MB were the norm for my MacPro 6100. It wasn't $2000, more like $500, it was late 90s. I't was amazing feeling holding that marvel of technology and thinking "man, I will never fill this up".Lolimaster - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Maybe mid 90's. Late 90's were the land of 10-20-40GB drives in OEM PC's.bigboxes - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I upgraded to a 10GB drive in '99 and thought it was huge!mdw9604 - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I remember printing our ASCII p0rn on my dot matrix printer and all I had as a 5 1/4 floppy drive. So there :Dvanilla_gorilla - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I'm really wondering how much media storage will increase in the next 20 years. Most of consumer media storage is pictures/videos from mobile devices and downloaded movies/tv from the internet (legal or otherwise).Now of course, we'll start seeing more 4K content, and that will significantly increase the storage requirements for video. But other than that, what will really increase our storage consumption? I guess what I'm saying is that I expect the growth to be pretty linear and predictable over the next 20 years.
stephenbrooks - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
VR, 360 degree video, 3D scans of scenes?Lolimaster - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Videos and pictures are still limited by the quality of the optics not much about the bitrate. No matter the space any of those pales in comparison to what your eyes see.Lolimaster - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
In the land of no internet or multimedia, Gigabyte size was a ton of space. Most people would only deal with small bats. word or txt files- With the advent of internet, jpg's, mp3, 24-32bit color space need skyrocketed.bigboxes - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
In other words... pr0n!Zak - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
BarraCuda? Seriously?retrospooty - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I am pretty sure that has been the name of their high end drive line for like 15 years now (give or take a few years).retrospooty - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
So of course I post, then I google it... It's 25 years of Barracuda's... I feel really old now.Zak - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I'm pretty sure too but the C was not capitalized. This just looks silly.The_Assimilator - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Marketing department gotta justify their budget somehow.retrospooty - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Oh, NOW I see what you mean. Yeah, that big C is new and does seem like a stupid marketing thing. "Lets capitalize one letter, it will make the product seem cool". Next year, we can officially change our name to seaGate :PEden-K121D - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
HaHatipoo - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
FireCuda was even more entertaining. Firepro+CUDA, though they could get away with it because of the existing Barracuda.UltraWide - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Will they also release lower spindle speed drives? 5,900rpm?retrospooty - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I am sure they will. Generally, with any storage tier, they go performance first (Barracuda) then follow up with cheaper, quieter models for normal storage needs like NAS, backups, htpc, or just people that dont require as much speed.DanNeely - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
"IronWolf"?! "SkyHawk"?!Those names sound like they belong on full PC builds from a boutique vendor who differentiates based on case lighting and other assorted bling.
bug77 - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
This is exactly what I wanted to read on Anandtech on GTX 1060 launch day.Thanks guys. /s
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
GPU catch-up list. GTX 1080 & 1070 review in next 24 hours; just finishing last edits now. Full GTX 1060 review by Fridaybug77 - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Lol. I've already found out what I needed.ikjadoon - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Please tell me you all did a deep-dive on GPU Boost 3.0; nobody else has done one yet. NVIDIA coyly remarked that it has "water-cooling optimizations" and most users are showing that the card actually reaches its max core clock speed at around 50-60C. Any higher and your core starts to drop in ~13MHz increments--so, even at 65C load, your GPU has reduced its maximum boost clock.In other words, if you have a very cool card, NVIDIA allows it to run at very high frequencies consistently.
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I think you'll find this graph to your liking: http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10325/TempComp.pn...ikjadoon - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
HOLYYYYYYYYY CRAPPP. Our anecdotal testing was correct!!!! WHAT. I cannot WAIT for this review.Cygni - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Edgy, fresh.Achaios - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
GPU's haven't been actually reviewed until Anandtech publishes their review, son. It's been that way since 2002 or so and Nvidia GeForce4.bug77 - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
They do add some interesting technical details. But as far as the actual performance is concerned, I can already skip all those pages.DanNeely - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
You're completely right. Until Ryan catches up on his GPU review backlog Ganesh shouldn't be allowed to post about storage systems, Anton shouldn't be allowed to post new articles, E. Fylladitakis shouldn't be allowed to write about case or PSU performance, etc.Eden-K121D - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Also You shouldn't be allowed to comment ;-/DanNeely - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Threading fail. *sigh* This was supposed to be a sarcastic reply to bug77's comment immediately above mine.bigboxes - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Yes, fail indeed. *eyeroll*JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
It's ogre! HDD's are dead! SSDs won! Just give up!magusnebula - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
You do realize that 80%-90% of cloud storage is cold storage that doesnt need speed or performance, just lots and lots of capacity for cheap. HDD's are going to be around for a good while.bigboxes - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Since we're just cutting and pasting here..."And yet they're haven't.
4TB SSD = $1,500
4TB HDD = $150
Not to mention unpowered SSDs are not a good idea for archived storage. Please feel free to inform us how dead HDDs are. LOL"
Alexvrb - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
There's no reason they couldn't design a cold storage system using SSDs that very occasionally wakes and refreshes the drive before powering back down. Plus commercial grade SSDs are more resilient to begin with than an entry level consumer drive.Other than that, yes, HDDs are here for a while yet. But in consumer systems they're increasingly becoming secondary storage only, and even that is becoming less essential for a lot of regular people as time goes on. I'll still need a secondary HDD or two for the foreseeable future, myself.
webdoctors - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Dang, did U see those 1060 benchmarks?! Those are ridonculous! Faster than a 980! Crazzzzzzy.Alexvrb - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Really? I have seen a lot of benchmarks that don't agree. On average looks like it falls between a 970 and a 980. Don't get me wrong that's still very impressive. But at $300 for the 6GB it's hardly earth shattering. Hopefully a decent aftermarket model will cost around the same and OC a lot better. I think the 1070 launch was more impressive compared to other cards in its price range.CaedenV - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Not a bad starting price, Plus the return of 5 year warranties on Seagate consumer grade HDDs... pretty exciting!Now lets see 4-8TB drives drop in price and have 5 year warranties too :) Those are what I am interested in for my home RAID setup.
wumpus - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
"Consumers"? Presumably this is targeted at someone who just buys the biggest without thinking about it. At $500, it isn't targeted at someone who doesn't have a ton of SSD.Reliability is nice, but since you can get 5 3TB (7200rpm) drives for $350 and put them in RAID mode, I'd take that over any single drive (and RAIDing big drives is always more expensive than small drives). I guess the lifespan argument should work if you don't think there is going to be much improvement in spinning hard drives (no point in buying longevity on anything obeying Moore's law), but that only suggests going cheaper in the knowledge that you will simply replace them with SSDs.
I just hope that anyone who buys one of these realizes that if their time is worth the ease of a single huge drive, their time is doubly worth the backup (and no, RAIDing a bunch of small drives isn't a backup. Although plugging a bunch of USBs and making your backup a separate RAID drive would make a lot of sense. Backups sit around and are likely threatened by stiction).
magusnebula - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
True, but if your limitation is the number of bays you have, then you would want 10TB (granted if you need that much space). Using RAID 5 no matter the size of the disk, you lose space close to the size of one of your disks. For example in a 6 bay NAS, 10TBx6 @RAID 5 is about 50TB usable. 3TBx6 @ RAID 5 will net you 15TB. Now thats not including a spare which would lose you another disk worth of space.Cygni - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
In what world do you live in where everyone has unlimited NAS bays?valinor89 - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
The same one where everyone has a NAS!Gunbuster - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
The space would be nice but just as a point of pride I don't think I could use a drive sporting that staggering 0.74 MB/s 4K read... even as a storage drive. /Spoiled by SSDLolimaster - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
Storage drives don't need 4k performance.You only care about that for OS/Application.
Alexvrb - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Yeah, because reading sequential data really requires a high 4k random performance?? You use a storage drive to store crap like HD video. As LM pointed out, that's completely irrelevant for a mass storage drive. If the sequential read speed is high enough to read a UHD video or two, you're good.Magichands8 - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
I'm going to come right out and say this is almost totally useless. The larger the drive is, the more data you have at risk should it fail. The way to protect against that is RAID. But if you're going to RAID a lot of drives together then the high capacity of each individual drive becomes a liability since the more space you have to recover, should one fail, will make for insane rebuild times to recover the array. That's when high performance becomes more important. But these are relatively very slow performing devices and as you use space the performance continues to degrade. There really isn't a sensible consumer solution for these problems. And if you have lots of media to store and don't have enterprise class resources to do it with you are pretty much out in the cold. For enterprise, this is maybe feasible but if you are a consumer buying this you will also be buying lots of headaches and new problems down the road.Lolimaster - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
RAID is dangeous.Just keep your drives mirrored and checked by software. Never all of them by hardware raid.
Gigaplex - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
RAID is not a backup solution. Depending on the level of RAID, it's there to improve uptime.bigboxes - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
You ever hear of backup? RAID is not backup. Are you new to all of this? RAID is for uptime. Even with RAID you still need backups.zodiacfml - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Guy above is right. RAID is only for uptime. Rebuild time is pretty non-issue as it will manifest itself as a degraded performance during the rebuild.Regular backups is still compulsory as it will protect for data corruption due to human error, virus or hardware/firmware.
serendip - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link
They need to make some monster laptop hard drives, for geeks like me who have a dual-drive SSD+HDD setup. What's the coolest, most efficient 2.5" HDD so far?retrospooty - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
That is a good question. Not sure, but it seems to me that they really gimp hybrid drives with lame SSD portions like 8gb, oh boy. It would be great to have a real SSD (as in decent performance and size) connected to a disk based drive that could be used in laptops with one drive bay.Visual - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Well, I guess HDD manufacturers can be happy for once as well. Ever since that "flood" excuse they had 5 years ago, they seem to have stopped cutting prices per GB almost completely. This 10TB is about twice as expensive as the 5TB I got 2.5 years ago now. No deal.zodiacfml - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
I do feel that this capacity is feasible with a non-helium version, albeit, at lower RPM's and even slower performance.retrospooty - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
LOL, yeah that flood excuse is way past old. I felt after 1 year it was time to STFU about it, but they milked it to death.jaden24 - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Eh, I'll happily wait for WD 10TB Reds. I'll never trust Seagate.