The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Whats the difference between the Hitachi 7K320 and 7K200?

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by roland_j, Aug 31, 2008.

  1. roland_j

    roland_j Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    -8
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I dont understand, why are they different?
     
    roland_j, Aug 31, 2008
    #1
  2. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Phil, Aug 31, 2008
    #2
  3. Tony_A

    Tony_A Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    67
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    also Sata-150 vs Sata-300
     
    Tony_A, Aug 31, 2008
    #3
  4. roland_j

    roland_j Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    -8
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Ah nice, thank you
     
    roland_j, Aug 31, 2008
    #4
  5. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    That's true. But it does not have any impact on performance.
     
    Phil, Aug 31, 2008
    #5
  6. t30power

    t30power Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    190
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    7K320 have doubled the 7K200 (16MB on the 320 over 8MB on the 200)
     
    t30power, Aug 31, 2008
    #6
  7. Arki

    Arki Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    3,639
    Messages:
    4,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Arki, Aug 31, 2008
    #7
  8. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    There's some conflicting reports on this. The testing our member Andy did with PC Mark and PCMark Vantage seems to indicate that the 7K3200 is faster than WD3200BEKT.
    Win XP startup performance

    But some of the I/O benchmarks on Tom's hardware seem to indicate that the WD3200BEKT is faster than the 7K320.
    Workstation benchmark
    Database benchmark

    Finally in raw transfer rates, Seagate 7200.3 is fastest.
    Raw read

    So in real world performance, I would guess the 7K320 is fastest and that the benchmarks on Tomshardware with I/O meter are not very accurate predictions of real world performance.
     
    Phil, Aug 31, 2008
    #8
  9. Arki

    Arki Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    3,639
    Messages:
    4,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    I guess there really is no "fastest" HDD then. Seems different manufacturers have their highlights.

    Thanks, Phil. :)
     
    Arki, Aug 31, 2008
    #9
  10. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Welcome man. And by the way, in power consumption Seagate 7200.3 is the winner.
     
    Phil, Aug 31, 2008
    #10
  11. K-TRON

    K-TRON Hi, I'm Jimmy Diesel ^_^

    Reputations:
    4,412
    Messages:
    8,077
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    205
    I dont really like Tomshardware anyomore, I think they have went downhill over the last 18 months or so. Their reviews are not as good as they used to be. They are also full of advertisements, which is leading me to believe that they are skewing their data a little bit from company payoffs. A lot toms hardware mentions is not entireley true, which leads me to believe that they may not be the best resource for information.

    Otherwise, the 7K320 is basically the new and improved 7K200 with higher density platters.

    K-TRON
     
    K-TRON, Aug 31, 2008
    #11
  12. Andy

    Andy Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,133
    Messages:
    6,399
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    206
    ^ I agree. Bull**** (Pretty much) --> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/notebook-hard-drive,2006.html

    I ain't gonna be referring this article to anyone. 7K320 --> FTW !! :D
     
    Andy, Aug 31, 2008
    #12
  13. D3X

    D3X the robo know it all

    Reputations:
    688
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Actually, SATA-II uses more power in general compared to SATA-I.
     
    D3X, Aug 31, 2008
    #13
  14. sgogeta4

    sgogeta4 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,389
    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    456
    The 7K200 also has 16MB cache. All (if not all, then most) 7200RPM drives have 16MB cache.
     
    sgogeta4, Aug 31, 2008
    #14
  15. Ch28Kid

    Ch28Kid Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    124
    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Totally agree. Tomshardware is not really a great place for reviews anymore.

    The thing that pisses me off is they spread their simple 2.5" hdd review into 17 different pages. Seriously?
     
    Ch28Kid, Aug 31, 2008
    #15
  16. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    And they did not bother running 1 real world benchmark. Because even I/O meter and PC Mark are synthetic. Really dissappointing.
     
    Phil, Sep 1, 2008
    #16
  17. D3X

    D3X the robo know it all

    Reputations:
    688
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    56
    They used to do a bunch of Windows Boot up speed comparisons, Software like Photoshop boot up, OS file transfer benches that are based on real applications and not synthetic. Dissappointing to say the least, I think the Hitachi is underrated and the seagate is far overrated. I think the real winners are WD and Hitachi.
     
    D3X, Sep 1, 2008
    #17
  18. colex

    colex Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    I think the same!
    The Seagate firmware has some hack/trick for benchmark.

    The same happen's in video-card arena when compared nVidia and ATI GPU!
     
    colex, Sep 1, 2008
    #18
  19. trek87

    trek87 Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    can the 7K320 320 GB 7200rpm 3 Gb/s SATA work with at 1.5 Gb/s SATA HD caddy? in other words, is it backward compatible? thanks.
     
    trek87, Sep 4, 2008
    #19
  20. Andy

    Andy Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,133
    Messages:
    6,399
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    206
    Yes, SATA2 (3.0GB/s) is backward compatible with/to SATA1 (1.5GB/s)....
     
    Andy, Sep 4, 2008
    #20
  21. trek87

    trek87 Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    ok, phew! thanks for the quick reply Andy. i just bought the aforementioned drive and a Lenovo ultraslim bay hdd adapter for my thinkpad T61p, and it has a '1.5 SATA' logo printed on it.
     
    trek87, Sep 4, 2008
    #21