Seagate 7200 RPM 80GB slower than 5400 RPM Maxtor?

[Larrymoencurly]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Why would 7200 RPM Seagate 80GB Barracuda V model ST380021A drives
be so sluggish compared to other drives I tried, including an 80GB
5400 RPM Maxtor?

I tried:

2 Seagate ST380021A, 7200 RPM 80GB, 2MB buffer, Singapore
1 Seagate ST120026A, 7200 RPM 120GB, 8MB buffer, China
1 Hitachi 7200 RPM 200GB, 8MB buffer
1 Maxtor 5400 RPM 80GB, 2MB buffer

All were imaged identically, each was tested as the only
IDE device in the computer. Two different 80-wire flat
cables were tried. One motherboard was an ECS K7S5A
(SiS 735 chipset), the other an ECS K7VTA3 v. 8 (VIA
KT-333 chipset). The BIOSes were set for both auto
HD mode configuration and set manually to limit the
transfers to ATA 33, 66, or 100. Windows was run with
DMA enabled.

With both 80GB Seagates cause the computers to pause longer
than usual before finishing their booting to Windows, and
once in Windows there was a pause before any files were
opened, but once opened they seemed to be processed at
normal speed. Also with Norton Ghost the copy speed was
about the same as with the other drives, whether the
80GB Seagate was the source or destination drive.

Is there something about the signal timing of the
ST380021A that makes it slightly incompatible with
certain hardware or bus mastering driver software?

Both Seagate's SeaTools and Hitachi's Drive Fitness
Test diagnostics report no problems.



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Tod]

Which harddrives were tested on which board ?
Or were all harddrives tested on all boards

VIA recommends reloading their drivers after any hardware change.

 

[Peter]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Why would 7200 RPM Seagate 80GB Barracuda V model ST380021A drives
be so sluggish compared to other drives I tried, including an 80GB
5400 RPM Maxtor?

I tried:

2 Seagate ST380021A, 7200 RPM 80GB, 2MB buffer, Singapore
1 Seagate ST120026A, 7200 RPM 120GB, 8MB buffer, China
1 Hitachi 7200 RPM 200GB, 8MB buffer
1 Maxtor 5400 RPM 80GB, 2MB buffer

All were imaged identically, each was tested as the only
IDE device in the computer. Two different 80-wire flat
cables were tried. One motherboard was an ECS K7S5A
(SiS 735 chipset), the other an ECS K7VTA3 v. 8 (VIA
KT-333 chipset). The BIOSes were set for both auto
HD mode configuration and set manually to limit the
transfers to ATA 33, 66, or 100. Windows was run with
DMA enabled.

With both 80GB Seagates cause the computers to pause longer
than usual before finishing their booting to Windows, and
once in Windows there was a pause before any files were
opened, but once opened they seemed to be processed at
normal speed. Also with Norton Ghost the copy speed was
about the same as with the other drives, whether the
80GB Seagate was the source or destination drive.

Is there something about the signal timing of the
ST380021A that makes it slightly incompatible with
certain hardware or bus mastering driver software?

Both Seagate's SeaTools and Hitachi's Drive Fitness
Test diagnostics report no problems.

Try to get hold of a file transfer testing program, such as HDTach.
This will give you some real numbers to make comparisons with.

 

[larrymoencurly]

Which harddrives were tested on which board ?

All HDs were tried on both mobos.

VIA recommends reloading their drivers after any hardware change.

I tried three versions of their 4-in-1 drivers: 4.29, 4.36, and 4.51.
No differences.

 

[larrymoencurly]

Try to get hold of a file transfer testing program, such as HDTach.
This will give you some real numbers to make comparisons with.

I have a feeling it'll show decent numbers because it's only at the
start of a file access that the 80GB Seagates are sluggish.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I have a feeling it'll show decent numbers because it's only at the
start of a file access that the 80GB Seagates are sluggish.

Then obviously you shouldn't run it. It might hurt your feelings.