Scotts Valley (CA) – Seagate today announced the first desktop hard drive to store 250 GB on a single platter.

According to Seagate, the technology achieves an areal storage density of 180 Gb per square inch and will be used in the 7200.10 series of hard drives. Apparently, Seagate does not aim to set a new storage capacity record for this segment just yet, as the firm said that the new platters will be introduced in the “industry's first 250 GB-per-disc, 3.5” disc drive.”

The advantage of running a single platter in a drive comes down to lower power consumption, lower operating temperatures and less noise. Seagate did not disclose how much power the new drive will consume, previous 7200.10 drives with multiple platters, however, are rated at 7.5 watts – which is more three times the consumption of current 250 GB 2.5” drives, which rotate their discs at lower speeds (5400 rpm instead of 7200 rpm), but typically consume only around 2 watts during read and write processes.

Competing 3.5” technologies, including the 1 TB drive from Hitachi GST, store 200 GB per platter and achieve an areal density of 144 Gb per square inch. At least theoretically, the new platters will allow Seagate to roll out hard drives with five platters and a total capacity of 1.25 TB.

While Seagate can claim that it offers that highest density on 3.5” drives, competitors are offering substantially higher capacities in 2.5” models. Hitachi’s recently announced 2-platter 2.5” drive with 250 GB is rated at 205 Gb per square inch.

Something is not right

Jun 07, 2007 11:41     

Why is the article comparing the power consumption of the 7200.10 series which are 3.5" drives to 5400 RPM notebook drives? This is totally irrelevant. Am I missing something?
RN report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Sure it is...

Jun 07, 2007 14:01     

The article discusses the advantages of higher density, one of which is power consumption. Though the specifications of the new drives are not known, knowing that current 3.5" drives consume 7.5 watts and 2.5" drives consume 2 watts helps put it in perspective. So when the specifications of the new, higher density 3.5" drives are released, we will see how close 3.5" drives are coming to 2.5" power consumption while retaining higher tranfer rates. You couldn't deduce that?

Eck report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Not really

Jun 07, 2007 15:34     

It's like a new hummer with better gas mileage, and say, current hummer uses 5 times more gas than honda hybrid. Although the content is valid, but it's nonsense. The only thing I can say after reading the content is, "So?".
14981 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

performance per platter

Jun 07, 2007 15:51     

with a platter density that high, and at that rpm, im guessing it might very well be the first 7200rpm hdd to really surpass current raptors overall for transfer performance, too... just maybe.
Brandon report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Except...

Jun 07, 2007 16:04     

Except Seagate's website lists the 750GB 7200.10 at 9.3 to 13 watts power consumption. Comparing it to other 3.5" drives would have been a better comparison.
RN report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Its performance/ next gen sorta thing.

Jun 07, 2007 19:00     

It is a good comparison because what if this new drive comes out with say 3Watt performance. Then it is in the ballpark of a much slower 2.5" drive but with very fast transfer speeds. I like the comment about reaching raptor speeds with a 7200rpm. I sure hope it gets close. Then I'll have a new drive to get for a new raid config. someday! For those who like comparisons... It is like a new Corvette motor to a 5 year old Corvette motor. Less power almost the same size, but the new one has a bunch more power (rpm's for the hd's) but uses the same amount of fuel (electricity).

lightfoot report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I think the comparison is totally relevant....

Jun 08, 2007 08:02     

They are comparing 250 GB hard drives, storage density and power consumption. The comparison makes more sense when you realize that power consumption and storage density are of more concern when you deal with servers. There are servers out there that use 2.5 inch hard drives so that they can reduce power consumption and get more storage into the smallest space possible (density).
HD report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I think the comparison is totally relevant....

Jun 08, 2007 09:17     

...The more storage you fit into a smaller space the less floor space you need for a data center, which equals saving money.
HD report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

ChaCha disagree with you

Jun 16, 2007 13:53     

I think for two reasons this is an important issue. By lowering power consumption Seagate is battling an issue that the desktop segment is facing (power consumption). They can't very well make products that continually break gigabyte record but do so by simply adding more electricity to the mix. By worrying about performance at low wattage levels they are not only making a HD thats less power consuming, but also building a platform that can in fact push performance. They're taking the power consumption issue out of the equation because there getting there hd space without holding a huge demand on electricity, The second deal and the reason a 2.5 hd is compared to a 3.5 hd is that the 2.5 hd has less physical space to meet the demands that a 3.5 hd has. If a 2.5 can do something better than a 3.5 the question is raised how good is the 3.5.

chacha report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

To lightfoot

Jun 22, 2007 06:45     

You should take the next step and assume that if the 3.5" drive comes out with the new technology that the 2.5" will of course have it too. The 3.5" will always consume more power than a 2.5" even if the 2.5" spins a few percent faster than the 3.5" drive, that’s pure kinetics. Also to break these capacity barriers they aren't throwing more electricity into the mix, just a smaller process, like what they are doing with processors: going from 90nm to 65nm, fit more in less space. The WD Raptors will still probably be a preferable drive for entree-mid level servers though because when areal density goes up, the actuator spends more time getting to the bits accurately meaning slower response time, but usually slightly faster transfer rates. Lower response times means everything is snappier. Websites respond to many users more aggressively and database transactions which are not data intensive but IO intensive occur more rapidly meaning more transactions per given unit of time.

Dru report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0