Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
SATA or EIDE ? 1
- Thread starter Beth20
- Start date
-
1
- #2
1) Yes
2) On any board that supports SATA! The OS shouldn't matter - XP is fine
3) When comparing ATA/133 to SATA, there's not a whole lot of difference between the two. SATA does have a slight edge in RAID arrays, but there are other bottlenecks in your system to be more concerned about.
If you search on google, you will find a ton of info on the subject.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
2) On any board that supports SATA! The OS shouldn't matter - XP is fine
3) When comparing ATA/133 to SATA, there's not a whole lot of difference between the two. SATA does have a slight edge in RAID arrays, but there are other bottlenecks in your system to be more concerned about.
If you search on google, you will find a ton of info on the subject.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
Beth20
Most important thing is, does you motherboard have SATA connections? if it does then SATA is newer, very slightly quicker, obviosly supported by XP but you do need to load the 3rd party SATA drivers if you install a SATA drive on a clean install.
Raided just the same as IDE, with similar if not slightly quicker performance, lastly has the benefit of a slim 10mm wide cable connection which is much easier to route and better for air flow.
Downpoints:
Usually cost a few pounds more
Some makes of drives just have the one unique SATA power plug (certain brands also have the traditional molex power connector as well) so be aware when purchasing, unless you have a branded PSU that already sports the SATA power connectors (unlikely!)
Can be just a little more difficult to setup as a boot drive (require a third party driver) press F6 at beginning of XP OS install.
Martin
We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.
Most important thing is, does you motherboard have SATA connections? if it does then SATA is newer, very slightly quicker, obviosly supported by XP but you do need to load the 3rd party SATA drivers if you install a SATA drive on a clean install.
Raided just the same as IDE, with similar if not slightly quicker performance, lastly has the benefit of a slim 10mm wide cable connection which is much easier to route and better for air flow.
Downpoints:
Usually cost a few pounds more
Some makes of drives just have the one unique SATA power plug (certain brands also have the traditional molex power connector as well) so be aware when purchasing, unless you have a branded PSU that already sports the SATA power connectors (unlikely!)
Can be just a little more difficult to setup as a boot drive (require a third party driver) press F6 at beginning of XP OS install.
Martin
We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.
- Thread starter
- #4
Thanks.
I realize now I will have to stay with EIDE.
Because I run a couple systems, some older,
and have to transfer files with USB.
thats mainly what I use the drives for.
So, I gather it wouldnt work hooking a SATA drive up, by USB , to a non Sata mother board,
right?
Beth
I realize now I will have to stay with EIDE.
Because I run a couple systems, some older,
and have to transfer files with USB.
thats mainly what I use the drives for.
So, I gather it wouldnt work hooking a SATA drive up, by USB , to a non Sata mother board,
right?
Beth
No it wouldn't. SATA doesn't go over USB. It has its own "specialized" connector which is internally on the motherboard.
So unless that connector is preset, then your motherboard doesn't support it. Of course, you can always buy an add-in PCI card for SATA, but that kind of defeats the purpose. PCI is limited to 133MB/s, limiting SATA as well which is why the PCI option isn't preferred.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
So unless that connector is preset, then your motherboard doesn't support it. Of course, you can always buy an add-in PCI card for SATA, but that kind of defeats the purpose. PCI is limited to 133MB/s, limiting SATA as well which is why the PCI option isn't preferred.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
pweegar,
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but that's a common myth that some sales reps try to sell to their customers. Tests have shown that there is no major difference between SATA and EIDE drives...yet!
As of right now, high-end SATA and EIDE drives are pretty much equal. The only "performance" advantage SATA has is when configured in a RAID array, but even then it is just slight.
If you disagree, please post an example or link.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but that's a common myth that some sales reps try to sell to their customers. Tests have shown that there is no major difference between SATA and EIDE drives...yet!
As of right now, high-end SATA and EIDE drives are pretty much equal. The only "performance" advantage SATA has is when configured in a RAID array, but even then it is just slight.
If you disagree, please post an example or link.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
cdogg:
I think what pweeger is talking about is the new "smart" sata drives. Same plug and setup - different electronics on the sata board. Smart sata is supposed to be so much more efficient that there is a considerable speed difference. New type system, regular sata can't be changed/upgraded to smart.
I think what pweeger is talking about is the new "smart" sata drives. Same plug and setup - different electronics on the sata board. Smart sata is supposed to be so much more efficient that there is a considerable speed difference. New type system, regular sata can't be changed/upgraded to smart.
Well lets give my two cent worth. On an Intel D875PBZ bord the a single SATA drive gives a burst rate of 132 Mbytes/sec and a continues data rate of 68 Mbytes/sec. The same drive 8 Mbye cach but in IDE mode gives burst mode 72 Mb and continued mode of 38 Mb/sec. This bord however does not use the PCI channels at all. It has separate controllers for the drives, I would think that most modern bords with the Intel 875 or 865 chipset work very similar. This test were made at a university comp. lab not by some backyard outfit. Regards
Jurgen
Jurgen
I agree that newer "high-end" SATA drives are getting "smarter" and "faster" than other comparable EIDE drives. However, you'll notice that many of the fastest SATA drives do not have a similar model made for the EIDE interface. The WD Raptor is a perfect example. This just goes to show how higher quality parts and faster RPM's are being utilized to compete with the SCSI standard. The problem I have, however, is that many out there assume that if they have an SATA drive, it's going to beat EIDE hands down. This is simply not the case, as not many SATA drives utilize the same concepts and designs employed by the Raptor.
I wasn't degrading the value of SATA in my last post. I just wanted to point out that not every SATA drive is going to give you a boost over EIDE. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
I could post many more, but there are a handful of SATA drives on the flip-side that can beat top-notch ATA/100/133 drives. So the bottom line is to do your research, because not every SATA drive gives you an edge over EIDE. The "drive" itself matters more than the "interface"!
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
I wasn't degrading the value of SATA in my last post. I just wanted to point out that not every SATA drive is going to give you a boost over EIDE. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
I could post many more, but there are a handful of SATA drives on the flip-side that can beat top-notch ATA/100/133 drives. So the bottom line is to do your research, because not every SATA drive gives you an edge over EIDE. The "drive" itself matters more than the "interface"!
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
cdogg:
SATA is a faster interface than IDE ever could be. In fact, performance is so good that SAN manufacturers are now building introductory level SAN units with SATA drives. In fact (from the various sources I've seen) the only place SCSI drives still maintain an edge is in applications that require very high availabilty, 24X7. And the gap continues to narrow, esp. as the capacity and price of SATA drives fall. A good example is the EMC AX100 SAN solution. According to EMC's specs, this device has a bandwidth of 300MB or 300,000 cached io's per second. No IDE solution can do that. And it's probably close to SCSi performance.
It would be interesting to see the specs for the systems used in testing the drives from the website you posted. Like I said in my previous post. My 160 GB SATA drive is a lot faster than my 60 GB IDE drive. I image it has a lot to do with 1) The amount of cache on each drive 2) eWhether or not the controller is built into the mb and optimized for performance.
For a review of SATA performance, please see
What I am saying is, with today's maturing SATA technology, IDE (EIDE, whatever) can barely compete with SATA drives. SATA also may mean the death of SCSI in all applications except in high end, high availabilty solutions in large server farms (and this may not be true in the coming years)
SATA is a faster interface than IDE ever could be. In fact, performance is so good that SAN manufacturers are now building introductory level SAN units with SATA drives. In fact (from the various sources I've seen) the only place SCSI drives still maintain an edge is in applications that require very high availabilty, 24X7. And the gap continues to narrow, esp. as the capacity and price of SATA drives fall. A good example is the EMC AX100 SAN solution. According to EMC's specs, this device has a bandwidth of 300MB or 300,000 cached io's per second. No IDE solution can do that. And it's probably close to SCSi performance.
It would be interesting to see the specs for the systems used in testing the drives from the website you posted. Like I said in my previous post. My 160 GB SATA drive is a lot faster than my 60 GB IDE drive. I image it has a lot to do with 1) The amount of cache on each drive 2) eWhether or not the controller is built into the mb and optimized for performance.
For a review of SATA performance, please see
What I am saying is, with today's maturing SATA technology, IDE (EIDE, whatever) can barely compete with SATA drives. SATA also may mean the death of SCSI in all applications except in high end, high availabilty solutions in large server farms (and this may not be true in the coming years)
micker777,
I believe the feature you are referring to is Native Command Queuing (NCQ). Yes, this was added to 2nd generation SATA controllers to enhance disk access commands. However, this feature does not "increase" the transfer rates of a hard drive. Instead, it makes multitasking more efficient allowing multiple apps to access the hard drive at the same time without as much of a hit in performance. This article discusses that in detail:
pweegar,
Kudos on your reply! I'm not so sure where we're in disagreement, except that I'm not advocating that ALL SATA drives outperform ALL IDE drives. If you read my last post again, you might also discover that I'm familiar with storagereview.com considering my link was to a comparison at their site. But hey, thanks for the info...
It's quite simple really:
"[blue]Some SATA drives are at the top of their game beating out all other IDE drives on the market, and giving some SCSI drives a run for their money[/blue]". But many of the other SATA drives out there are nothing more than an IDE drive using a different interface (the hardware and seek logic are practically the same).
Don't be fooled into thinking that the interface (SATA) is the reason drives are getting faster. Remember that in terms of bandwidth, SATA (150MB/s) only has a 17MB/s advantage over ATA/133 - and that only helps drives that can peak above 133MB/s. Unfortunately, most drives on the market right now cannot do that unless configured in a RAID array.
It just so happens that since SATA is being included in just about every new motherboard, manufacturers are slowly weeding out PATA drives and making the newest models SATA. And as we all know, newer usually means faster.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
I believe the feature you are referring to is Native Command Queuing (NCQ). Yes, this was added to 2nd generation SATA controllers to enhance disk access commands. However, this feature does not "increase" the transfer rates of a hard drive. Instead, it makes multitasking more efficient allowing multiple apps to access the hard drive at the same time without as much of a hit in performance. This article discusses that in detail:
pweegar,
Kudos on your reply! I'm not so sure where we're in disagreement, except that I'm not advocating that ALL SATA drives outperform ALL IDE drives. If you read my last post again, you might also discover that I'm familiar with storagereview.com considering my link was to a comparison at their site. But hey, thanks for the info...
It's quite simple really:
"[blue]Some SATA drives are at the top of their game beating out all other IDE drives on the market, and giving some SCSI drives a run for their money[/blue]". But many of the other SATA drives out there are nothing more than an IDE drive using a different interface (the hardware and seek logic are practically the same).
Don't be fooled into thinking that the interface (SATA) is the reason drives are getting faster. Remember that in terms of bandwidth, SATA (150MB/s) only has a 17MB/s advantage over ATA/133 - and that only helps drives that can peak above 133MB/s. Unfortunately, most drives on the market right now cannot do that unless configured in a RAID array.
It just so happens that since SATA is being included in just about every new motherboard, manufacturers are slowly weeding out PATA drives and making the newest models SATA. And as we all know, newer usually means faster.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884
- Status
Similar threads
