How good is the Barracuda IV?

[Jeffy]

Fry's has a pretty good deal on the barracuda IV 40 gb for $99. I just wonder wut is the str. I couldn't find it in seagate data sheets. And will there be a difference in performance between the ibm 60 gxp 40 gb and this barracuda IV? if so, which one should i get? I don't want to get it online because of the shipping which will add to a $10 or more difference.

[cadetstimpy]

Here's the drive info

http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1121,384,00.html

[Jeffy]

been there, just can't find the sustained transfer rate, which is very important.

[otheos]

check the review at www.storagereview.com

I think it's a good drive (the numbers given at the review are for specific tasts, to standardise the comparison and do not reflect YOUR usage).

Over the 60GXP? yes, I will take the cuda!

[NDD]

Seagate did a good job on Barracude IV series, but taking it over IBM 60GXP ?! Naa ... :)
Not looking too much into various benchmarks/reviews available, I've worked with both drives, on similar Athlon machines, and IBM 60GXP was a way faster, it did finish to install W2K Pro almost 10 minutes earlier then the Barracuda IV, just for example !!!

Best Regards ...

[otheos]

IBM 60GXP was a way faster, it did finish to install W2K Pro almost 10 minutes earlier then the Barracuda IV, just for example !!!

There is no way you can notice the difference between two drives of the same generation (let alone the fact the cuda is a 40GB/platter and the 60GXP is 20GB/platter). You must be referring to a different drive, or you may have had some troubles in the latter case (different CDROM, no cacheing etc).

Drives of the same generation are known to give a different "feel" but doing the numbers will not show anything near that. The 60GXP and the Maxtor DM+ 60 for instance. The former gives higher values in some benchmarks. Add all up, and if you manage to save 2mins a year! with their differences, and most notably, notice such a difference.... I doubt it!

The "feel" is somehow different. For instance the Quantum LM+ is still by most the fastest IDE drive (and yet its older than the 60GXP or the DM+). Why? It feels faster! Admitedly the seek times are the best ever for an IDE drive, and this is what makes the drive feel faster. Add the numbers up: 2minutes a year!


While I don't mean to be absolute, statements like the above (sorry ND) are misleading. a 10minute difference in installing W2K is definitely not a HD issue (as far as hardware is concerned).

The cuda IV is a very fast drive (a bit overhyped, but still fast) and I chalenge anybody to try both drives (the IV and the 60GXP say) on the same machine and be able to tell the difference in performance!.

[NDD]

You asked it, otheos, ND always stands behind his words :D

The whole story :

One of my friends (as usual :) ) wanted an upgrade and asked for my advice. He wanted to leave few components from his old machine (PIII-600EB), but brand new mobo/CPU/HD. That's what we had at the end :

Abit KT7A
1.2GHz T-Bird (c)
256MB PC133 generic RAM (old)
Leadtek WinFast GeForce2 MX (old)
48x generic CD-ROM (old)
Samsung CD-RW/DVD combo (old)
ESS 56k modem (old)
SB Live! Value (old)

The last thing which left was the harddisk. I have 75GXP 45GB, and told him that IBM are among the fastest he gonna find. To be fair, I also told him about the new Seagate Barracuda IV, but we don't have it here yet, and already have 60GXP 40/60GB in stock.
"OK", he said, "I wanna check this out on the Net, if I'll find some 60GXP vs Barracuda IV comparisons". He found some benchmarks, indeed, don't remember where, which showed that the new Barracuda IV is "ready to take the crown" from the 60GXP.
So, he asked me to order Barracuda IV 60GB for him. He had to wait almost a week, coz of special delivery, but got it finally.

Then I asked him if he'll let me check both drives, just by performing ordinary W2K installation and working with it for a while. He didn't mind, so I partitioned both drives to have three equal ~20GB partitions, copied the whole W2K installation on E:\ and installed to C:\, first Barracuda IV then IBM 60GXP.

Well, too bad I didn't keep the records, but 60GXP finished the whole installation (until you have the desktop, eventually) about 10 minutes earlier. The performance in Windows was quite similar, got almost equal scores from SiSoft Sandra, Barracuda IV was only slightly faster, not even by 100 points.

I can't tell you why, neither consider myself next Tom Pabst, but I only see what I see :)

The competitors :
Seagate ST360021A Barracuda IV 60GB (http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/marketing/detail/0,1121,383,00.html)
IBM IC35L060AVER07 60GXP 60GB (http://www.storage.ibm.com/hdd/desk/ds60gxp.htm)

Best Regards ...

[otheos]

Granded!

This however brings another good point!

When the Maxtor DM+ 60 was anounced we got 2 drives for a couple of workstations we were building at the time. Two days later, the previeous order of two WD400BB's came so we set up another two workstations.

Since we do a kickstart from the network (RH7.1) the setup times were identical (otherwise identical boxes, dual P3 866's).

Once the boxes were up, performance was identical. However, when the system swapped, the DM +60 was much faster. After a thorough test I found out that the Maxtor drive was a lot faster than the WD when it came to moving data between partitions (as is the case when swapping).

Now since you said performance was identical once W2K was set up, chances are the 60GXP performs better when moving data between partitions. How? It's all in the firmware! No bechmark usually is done to test partition to partition data moving. And this is where the complexity of hard drive benchmarking arises.

However, on tests I found on the web (if you want I can dig up for link) only the DM60+ showed a difference over the other drives (while the rest were at the same level) when it came to partition to partition. Does this make the DM+ 60 a better drive? Not unless your are after that exact feature.

What I am trying to say, is that drives of the same generation, have differences, however they are so small that real life use could not possibly detect them.

When people look for advise on a hard drive, as soon as they decide which way to go (7200 or 5400), the rest of the decision (brand) is completely personal (experiences) and statements like "IBM smokes the rest" show ignorance. At the end of the day, once the drive is known to be reliable, then its all left to how noisy it is, or if it needs active cooling or what the company's RMA policy is.

These days I suggest the Maxtor DM+ 60, due to its low price, low noise and heat production and Maxtor's excellent RMA and support. After having 3 RAID5 boxes (IDE2SCSI with 75GXPs) losing 7 drives (out of 24) in 7 months I personally keep a distance from IBM for the time being. Speed has nothing to do with it. :)

[NDD]

Granded ! ;)

Maybe it was related to the fact that data was moved between the partitions, maybe it's something else. In fact, I didn't expect 60GXP to be such an outstanding performer compared to the newer Barracuda IV.
But it doesn't really matter. I completely agree with you that harddisks of the same generation should perform the same, more or less. The fact that 60GXP was faster then Barracuda IV in installing W2K doesn't bother me much. And indeed, I care more about reliability, and althought I heard a lot about problems with IBM drives, I didn't have any single fault, and I've sold about 30 drives so far, both 75GXP and 60GXP.

I might check those Maxtor drives you're talking about, since I about to set up few more servers, it's just that Maxtor high-end drives are quite un-common here :(

And for conclusion - "IBM smokes the rest" :)

Best Regards ...

[cadetstimpy]

Installation of an OS ususally involves copying a lot of files and formatting in 16 bit mode up until the first boot ...not a good way to compare drives.

[Jeffy]

i got that hd for $100. but formatting is slow, prolly 2 hours until it finishes omg!