Advantages for SCSI vs. IDE CD-RWs??????

[Buzzman151]

I will be building myself a new system and I will be putting SCSI in it. I will be getting a 40x plextor SCSI cdrom for file transfers but is it better to get an IDE or SCSI burner... IDE is hella cheaper when it comes to burners but I didn't know how much of a preformance increase i would get. If I get, lets say, a 24x SCSI burner and a 24X IDE burner, shouldn't they have the same burn preformance since the limiting factor in the burning process itself is the speed of the burn process instead of the speed of the IDE or SCSI controllers/cables??? Thanks for the info guys.


Drew

 

[Ausm]

Since recent IDE burners are capable of burning at 24X or greater speed is not an issue. The main advantage would be load on the CPU using SCSI devices takes the load off your CPU


Ausm

 

[AluminumStudios]

I had a SCSI CD-ROM (Toshiba 32x) for the longest time and a SCSI CD-RW (Yamaha 8x8x24) and it was nice becaues it didn't affect my system at all while burning or transferring from the drives. I could do whatever I wanted without a hint of slow down.

But when the CD-RW died recently and I began looking for a replacement I found that SCSI CD-RWs were just too expensive and IDE CD-RWs were generally burning at higher speeds. So I abandoned SCSI. I bought an LG 16x10x40 IDE CDRW. It works outstandingly. The drive has buffer underrun protection so it's not an issue. It also reads a heck of a lot faster than either of my SCSI drives did.

I don't feel that the cost justifies SCSI anymore. Especially with dwindiling selections of SCSI drives.

For a single user desktop machine I just don't see a reason for SCSI since IDE matches it in terms of performance and is MUCH less expensive.

 

[Jerboy]

<< I had a SCSI CD-ROM (Toshiba 32x) for the longest time and a SCSI CD-RW (Yamaha 8x8x24) and it was nice becaues it didn't affect my system at all while burning or transferring from the drives. I could do whatever I wanted without a hint of slow down.

But when the CD-RW died recently and I began looking for a replacement I found that SCSI CD-RWs were just too expensive and IDE CD-RWs were generally burning at higher speeds. So I abandoned SCSI. I bought an LG 16x10x40 IDE CDRW. It works outstandingly. The drive has buffer underrun protection so it's not an issue. It also reads a heck of a lot faster than either of my SCSI drives did.

I don't feel that the cost justifies SCSI anymore. Especially with dwindiling selections of SCSI drives.

For a single user desktop machine I just don't see a reason for SCSI since IDE matches it in terms of performance and is MUCH less expensive. >>



Think of IDE as a country road. It can handle single transfer very fast and quite well, but whenever the drive is in use, no matter how small the bandwidth its using, it will hold the hold bus. Just like slow poke on two lane road.

SCSI would be super-highway. It handles multiple transfers, command queueing without stopping everyone alot better than IDE.

 

[dunkster]

I would suggest that having HD, CDRW and CDROM on discrete device ports - eliminating any master/slave configurations - is a much more important consideration than SCSI vs. IDE considerations for the majority of pc applications.

For those with heavy image-processing or other data-intensive applications, then considerations such as SCSI and RAID configurations have greater impact.

 

[Buzzman151]

I currently have an Abit-kt7a RAID mobo and have everythinng on different channels which is damn nice. I am getting a new mobo and I wanted something else to play with so I chose SCSI. I can get some cheap SCSI HD's and controller but I'm still tossing around the idea of getting a SCSI cd-rw. I'm probably going to go w/ a non raid Shuttle or Epox kt266a board.... probably shuttle. I'll have a 30 and a 40 gig IDE HDs on separate channels and then I'll probably have the CD-RW as a Slave on one then I can just the SCSI cdr for my data transfers and whatnot. I might acually just end up getting a SCSI dvd so I can do my dvd ripping to one of my dvd HD's w/ alot less impact on my computer's resources.

 

[BuckleDownBen]

If you only have one IDE device, and the rest is SCSI, what is the disadvantage compared to an all SCSI system, except for some CPU utilization?

 

[Mavrick007]

If your system is fairly new and fast then you shouldn't have to worry about using scsi over ide.
It's true that it will take the load off of the cpu but when your cpu can do multiple operations it isn't hurting it much at all.

Save some money, go ide for a burner.

 

[Buzzman151]

<< If you only have one IDE device, and the rest is SCSI, what is the disadvantage compared to an all SCSI system, except for some CPU utilization? >>



oh no no.... I'll have a 40 gig and a 30 gig IDE HD, a zip, and maybe a cd-rw on my IDE devices. Then I'll have a couple of 9.1's and maybe a 36.6 SCSI HDs w/ either the 40x plextor cdrom or a DVD as SCSI

See the optimal thing would be for me to be able to rip a DVD, burn a CD, download some "back-ups" off of hotline or Mirc, and still be able to get like 80 or 90 FPS on Counterstrike.... oh yeah Then I wake up, realize that probably won't happen and get back to my work

 

[Leokor]

<< I will be building myself a new system and I will be putting SCSI in it. I will be getting a 40x plextor SCSI cdrom for file transfers but is it better to get an IDE or SCSI burner... IDE is hella cheaper when it comes to burners but I didn't know how much of a preformance increase i would get. If I get, lets say, a 24x SCSI burner and a 24X IDE burner, shouldn't they have the same burn preformance since the limiting factor in the burning process itself is the speed of the burn process instead of the speed of the IDE or SCSI controllers/cables??? Thanks for the info guys.


Drew >>


There are no 24x SCSI burners, so the point is moot. No one develops new SCSI burners anymore. The main reason to have it SCSI was to avoid buffer underruns, but the current technology allows safe burning with IDE, so there is no need anymore. The downside to SCSI burners is that you require a special SCSI card. Or, if you already have one, adding a SCSI burner on the same SCSI channel with your ultra-powerful SCSI hard drives would cripple their performance. Yes, SCSI burners can be external, but the transfer rates for burners are so low that Firewire or USB 2 could take care of that easily.

Bluntly put, there is no more marketing reason for SCSI burners, and hence you won't find anything beyond 16x.

Leo

 

[Wolfsraider]

<< There are no 24x SCSI burners, so the point is moot. No one develops new SCSI burners anymore >>





<< Bluntly put, there is no more marketing reason for SCSI burners, and hence you won't find anything beyond 16x >>




really?

what about this one which includes both ide and scsi 3 interfaces?
and they make a 20x too!


CRW3200SZ 24x10X40X CD-RW SCSI-3 Internal Drive w/Safeburn Software # CRW3200SZ New! $297.84

Here bottom of page hmmm...

also there are others but can't remember the websites off the top of my head

hope this helps


edit the link goes to page 4 but the drive is the last one on page 6

for some reason the link to page 6 reverts to page 4 sorry but still good link

 

[Buzzman151]

hehehe.... thnx HardwareAddict..... and having 2 SCSI devices on the same channel communicating w/ each other shouldn't effect their performance much should it?

 

[Leokor]

<< CRW3200SZ 24x10X40X CD-RW SCSI-3 Internal Drive w/Safeburn Software # CRW3200SZ New! $297.84 >>


That (and its likes) is actually an IDE drive equipped with some funky IDE-SCSI converter. But look at the price! I hope no one gets fooled by it.

The major manufacturers have long since announced phasing out development of new SCSI burners, and SCSI optical drives in general.

Leo

P.S. Now, SCSI hard drives, on the other hand, is a totally different matter!

 

[Leokor]

<< hehehe.... thnx HardwareAddict..... and having 2 SCSI devices on the same channel communicating w/ each other shouldn't effect their performance much should it? >>


If one of the SCSI devices is LVD, and the other one is SE, then the LVD device will revert to the SE mode. All SCSI optical drives are SE, so it is NOT advisable to put them on the same channel with your LVD hard drives. You'd regret it.

Honestly, I don't understand why people make so much fuss about SCSI opticals. Just 'cause you like the word SCSI? But they're SE SCSI! It's like heaven and earth between LVD and SE. The single-ended crap has got to go.

Leo

 

[Wolfsraider]

If one of the SCSI devices is LVD, and the other one is SE, then the LVD device will revert to the SE mode. All SCSI optical drives are SE, so it is NOT advisable to put them on the same channel with your LVD hard drives. You'd regret it.

Honestly, I don't understand why people make so much fuss about SCSI opticals. Just 'cause you like the word SCSI? But they're SE SCSI! It's like heaven and earth between LVD and SE. The single-ended crap has got to go.


please break this down for me and other please....

differences cabling etc... no raid reviews do this so please set us straight

 

[rockhard]

One thing i hate about IDE rom drives in general is how they hang your system while they initialise the CD.
That 3-5 seconds where you cant do anything on your computer till the drive has done its stuff is gettingon my nerves

 

[BuckleDownBen]

I can't stand that delay with the CD drive either. That would be worth a good premium to me over the life of a system. SCSI has no delay whatsoever?

 

[rockhard]

Yeah SCSI has no delay, thats why im thinking of going back to SCSI for my burner and DVD.
Has anyone seen a review of that Sanyo 24x SCSI burner?
Linky would be nice