Home / Computing / Peripheral / Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive / Barracuda XT 2TB versus other hard drives

Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive - Barracuda XT 2TB versus other hard drives

Ardjuna Seghers

By Ardjuna Seghers



Our Score:


With the disappointment that is SATA 6Gb/s out of the way, how does the Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB hold up against other magnetic 3.5in hard drives, and does it still have any chance to live up to its outrageous performance claims?

Our PCMark Vantage results finally give us something to get excited about, as this Seagate's relatively high density, combined with its huge cache and other architectural enhancements make it one of the fastest 3.5in hard drives we have tested. Impressively, it even beats Western Digital's VelociRaptor in one test, a feat no other magnetic hard drive has managed before.

In our set of Vista boot tests, again the Barracuda XT 2TB leads the pack and even dominates the 10,000rpm VelociRaptor overall, despite spinning at a slower 7,200rpm.


February 18, 2010, 10:56 am

Lets face it none of those tests even exceed the sata 1.5gb/s limit.Another excuse to buy unneeded hardware.


February 18, 2010, 2:13 pm

These drives might not exceed the TEORETICAL max of sata I (1.5gbps), but in reality both sata II and III have their advantages, more specificly SATA II's new features like ahci, ncq and other enhancements that improve performance.

Otoh, i dont recomend getting sata 3 if you have sata 2 allready - you will still gain the performance of this disk (but only if you run them in ahci mode and not legacy ide).


February 18, 2010, 3:26 pm


For now, I agree with you. However, as I mention in my {http://www.trustedreviews.c...} P7P55D-E motherboard review, SATA 6Gb/s should get the chance to come into its own once fast SSDs adopt the interface. Therefore it's not totally "unneeded" for future-proofing.


As above - if you're planning a build with a moving parts drive there seems little reason to get SATA III (which is officially called 'SATA 6Gb/s', much as 'SATA III' might have made everyone's life easier as 'SATA II' has become the most common appellation for its predecessor).


February 18, 2010, 8:56 pm

> We check out the first hard drive ... to come with 64MB of cache.

Is the WD Caviar Black 2TB not available in the UK? It's been on the market for almost 8 months now.

It's a bit odd that you don't compare the Seagate to that drive since the Caviar Black is a much more direct competitor for the Seagate than any of the other drives you compare it with.

G Hell

February 20, 2010, 3:57 am

I know I'm nit picking (after all, I can't fault your verdict) but

"...the higher bandwidth does result in faster maximum writes..."

is not what the histogram shows. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly it says that max write speed on SATA 3GB is 129.5 MB per sec and on SATA 6GB it is only 100.9 MB per sec.


February 22, 2010, 7:32 pm

The tests сlearly show that Marwell "SATA 3G" chips are a swindle. They are even inferior to Intel SB SATA II


March 2, 2010, 10:47 pm


Good point actually, I'm not sure which one made it to market first...

@G Hell:

Well spotted - that should have been "Reads". Review corrected, thanks.


Indeed, hence "The only possible conclusion to part of this puzzle is that the Intel 3Gb/s controller outperforms the Marvel 6Gb/s one regardless of bandwidth."

comments powered by Disqus