The most precise benchmark of a Seagate Spinpoint M9T 1.75TB (ST1750LM000 ) you'll ever find ;D

TomJGX wished for a benchmark of this harddrive, as its price makes it highly attractive over the 2TB version, and there basically is no real test-data on the 1.75TB yet, except one user from geizhals.at, who ran a benchmark with a short useless quarrel afterwards that led to nothing but speculations, which can be found here: https://geizhals.de/?sr=1216425,-1 .

So I installed the recommended HD Tune Pro 5.60 trial version and chose the "full test" with about 80% of maximum accuracy, which took about 10h, 5 for read and 5 for write *lol* !

Here are the results: 1st Read:



Plz notice the temperature of 54°C . No idea, why it is so high, but the Seagate Spinpoint M9T is licensed 'til 60°C, still, I find 54°C too high and I'm thankful for any suggestions on how to improve.

And 2nd Write:



Extra Tests: (Read, then Write)





To be continued...

 

Random Access Time: (Read -> Write)





And at last, Crystalmark:



----------------------

Here is a long, detailed test of the 2TB version: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1421-page1.html

I'm no expert, but to me, the performance of both disks looks exactly the same. Yes, my transfer-rates are magically 10 MB / s slower than found in some tests, anyhow, I tested the disk in a Windows 10 enviroment, and as SSD-performance also is slower on Win 10, the different OS in testing can easily explain them. On top, there are things like measuring inaccuracy. With that I want to aim on, that the thought of one user on geizhals.at, who suspected that the 1.75TB versions are lower-quality-versions of the 2TB drives, can imho not be proven. Personally I think, that Seagate is simply manufacturing two times the same drives, short-stroking some of the 2TB disks to 1.75TB, to sell them as low-budget-variants. This seems totally logical to me, because manufacturing only one type of disk is way cheaper than manufacturing two, and Seagate definitely aquires more customers with offering the way cheaper 1.75TB version. And interestingly enough, prices on the 1.75TB also rose just after I had bought it, so the difference in € / MB isn't so great anymore (it's still enough to consider the 1.75TB though) .

Conclusion: As already concluded in the linked 6-pages long test, the Seagate Spinpoin M9T is basically only useful for data storage. Though its performance in real-world-tests are unexpectingly good, the disk is still overall very slow in most disciplines. For me however, it's the perfect partner to my Samsung 256 GB 840 Pro, because that one is large enough for anything I want / need fast access to, and music, movies and the like don't need to be accessed with ultimate speed.
Having in mind, that the Samsung is actually the only very large capacity Notebook drive, and comparing it to other, 7200 RPM Notebook-drives, the Spinpoint M9T in fact is very competetive. Knowing that it only runs at 5400 RPM makes it "almost impressive" .

Hope this solves all questions towards that drive, and as there is a chance, that I re-install Win 7 during the next week, I maybe can also conduct the same tests in a better-performance-setting.

Seraiel

 

I forgot...

This is the data of the test-system:

 

Put @TomJGX so it will flag him (no worries, I just did it. ) But great testing. Nice of you to put in the time to do it.

 

BTW HT, completely offtopic however my Hp Gen 8 Microserver is up and running and perfectly.. Have 4X4TB WD Red drives + 500GB 7200rpm WD Black 2.5" drive for OS

 

Might be 1.75TB capacity be a way of using 2TB drives which have got some bad sectors? These will be mapped in the firmware so the user will never see them.

John

 

I hope not but knowing how Samsung/Seagate likes to cheap out wouldn't be surprised..

 

Intel test, sort and then sell their CPUs according to what works and what doesn't and how fast it will run so what's wrong with storage manufacturers doing something similar?

However, the consumer needs to check what storage capacity gives the best value.

John

 

I would find it very hard to believe that a HDD manufacturer was experiencing an 12.5% error rate in platter production in late 2015. Or would even take the time to test for that (on each platter produced...).

Cheaper, simpler and faster to just format the platters to the capacity needed.

Note: not the physical size (that is a constant). Just stop 1/8" or so sooner when laying down the recordable material...