Are these IBM 15,000 RPM drives at Buy.com something new?

[BuckNaked]

Check here , says they ship in 24-48 hours... I thought the X15 was the only 15K drive currently shipping...

Dave

 

[Smbu]

Well, IBM had announced them I think in January, maybe early February, so I guess they are finally out now. They are only the second hard drive maker to have 15krpm drives. I think Seagate is going to be releasing their successor to the X15 soon, too.

Wow, $577.95 for a 9.1gb drive. You can get an 18gb X15 drive for like $400 new.

 

[bacillus]

let's not get everyone excited as these are scsi U160 drives & not IDE!

 

[Vegito]

dang, pretty expensive for 9.1 gigs.. u can get like 3 or 4 after rebates 40gb 7200 ide for 1 of that guy...

 

[Ausm]

i thought they must have been SCSI drives...

Ausm

 

[mylam]

way too expensive, will take the seagate instead

 

[Smbu]

Hypermicro has the 18gb X15 drives now for only $369. Much better value than that 9gb IBM drive.

 

[BuckNaked]

How is the noise of the X15 compared to the Atlas 10k II?

Dave

 

[Pariah]

18GB version for $760? Ouch, that's ridiculous. I hope that is initial released markup, and not an indication of how much they will cost a month from now.

 

[dolphins]

Thats not the only thing thats new coming out of IBM. Expect the new deskstar 60 gxp's relatively soon. So anyone with a 75gxp 15 gig per platter guess what your not the fastest on the block anymore.

 

[Pariah]

Upon further investigation, this is not a consumer level drive. This is some proprietary Netfinity drive. Stats are here:

19K0655

The consumer level drive should be quite a bit cheaper.

 

[Wah]

buck naked,

the X15 is quiet and cool. I don't use a hard drive cooler anymore.

 

[MangoDude]

yes they are new, but they are not any faster!!!
and buy.com's prices suck!!!

 

[road]

IBM now produces the fastest HDD in the world, or so they claim. They even have a 36.4GB version of the 15k Drive. Nice very nice... but will burn a BIG hole in your pocket.

Peace..

 

[Train]

im still waiting for the jump to solid state hard drives

 

[Soccerman]

yeah WTF, IBM was increasing the platter density, that couldn't be the one we're all waiting for.. UNLESS, of course, they increased it, and decreased disk size to reduce access times...

why do I say this? well all 10K RPM drives have 9 gig platters, and I think the X15 does too, IBM was promising to increase their platter density, which, in conjunction to the 15000 RPM speed, would increase transfer rates quite well..

you have to remember that platter density isn't increased so quickly in SCSI drives, they go up as fast as IDE, just not hitting every interval (10-15-20-25-30)..

 

[Pariah]

I didn't really understand most of your post soccerman, looked liked you were having a secret conversation with yourself... but from what I could piece together you seem to have your drive stats messed up. First off, the stats on buy.com's site are wrong.

Cache / Buffer Size - None somehow I doubt that to be the case (actually 4MB)
Average Seek Time - 6.1 ms this number is wrong too by quite a bit (3.4ms for 18GB version)

"well all 10K RPM drives have 9 gig platters, and I think the X15 does too"

Actually, none of these drives do. Atlas 10K II is 7.3GB's, IBM36LZX is 6.1, both of Seagate's 10K drives are 6.1, Fujitsu's latest is 7.3, and the X15 is 3.6GB's a platter. The X15's number is a bit misleading because it uses smaller platters than the other drives, so if it used 3in platters it would be higher. In comparison, the new IBM drive is using around 6GB a platter which is quite a bit higher than the X15. The X15 2 will probably exceed that by a bit.

"yes they are new, but they are not any faster!!!"

You have a review sample that no one else has? I'd really be interested to see some benchmarks to back this statement up.

"buy.com's prices suck!!! "

Actually, their prices are pretty good. Considering IBM is selling the 9GB drive direct for $600, Buy.com is a bit cheaper.

 

[Soccerman]

Quantum crams 36 gigs of data onto five 7.3 GB - Storage Review

why is it that they (the 10KII's for example) ship in 9 gig, 18 gig, and 36 gig versions??

sorry for being confusing in my first post

Its five platters, each storing 3.7 gigs of data - From Storage Review.

wow, that X15 has a lot less then I thought.. the drive Storage review had was 18 gigs, that would require 5 platters if each was ~3 gigs/platter..

one thing I've noticed in IDE drives is that the ones with many platters have slower access times, so why isn't that true with SCSI drives??

The X15's number is a bit misleading because it uses smaller platters than the other drivesp

I already know that, I didn't mention it in my post

 

[Pariah]

"why is it that they (the 10KII's for example) ship in 9 gig, 18 gig, and 36 gig versions??"

I don't think there is any technical reason, just sort of an industry standard that developed over time.

"that would require 5 platters if each was ~3 gigs/platter.."

Yup, which is why there was no version above 18GB available.

"so why isn't that true with SCSI drives??"

It is true, just not to the same extent, as SCSI drives are manufactured to higher standards. If you take a look at Seagate's drives 9GB-36GB, they usually have the same seek, but the 73GB drives are always a bit slower. The same thing is the case with the new IBM 15k drive. The 18GB has 3.4ms seek, while the 36GB has 4.1ms.

 

[jor888]

THE NEW IBM 15K RPM SHOULD BE 36Z15 18 & 36 Gig and I dont think they are out yet.

 

[Soccerman]

I mean, I don't understand how they get 9 gig drives using 7 gig platters, unless they disable part of the platter or something (not just one side, but part of a side I bet)..

that could also be part of the reason why Storage Review was surprised at the X15's scores.. They thought it would be better in terms of access times..

so with today's platter densities on IDE drives, what would we be capable of getting on a platter the size of the ones in the X15? what about the 10KII?

 

[Pariah]

Part of a platter is not used.

"They thought it would be better in terms of access times.."

They expected more, because according to the specs it should have been about 5.9ms, instead of the relatively slow 6.8 it tested at. It's missed the mark by quite a bit.

"what would we be capable of getting on a platter the size of the ones in the X15? what about the 10KII?"

I don't know, there are too many variables, including how the data is zoned on the platters, and how large the center spindle is where no data is. The Atlas 10K III will have 18GB/platter, which doesn't put it all that far behind IDE. It will be interesting to see what the X15 sequel can achieve.