• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does SATA have an edge over old ATA?

7200 RPM over 5400 RPM yeah for sure... It seems faster.

I just benched my 7.2k RPM SATA and I only recieved a score of 55mb/sec... kind of dissapointing, but I think that is about correct. Don't know if something is wrong or not. Comp runs fast as heck .
 
No. There's no performance difference regarding the bus sizes (SATA's 150 vs. PATA's 133). No single PATA or SATA drive is able to utilize the full bandwidth of even a regular 133 bus. If I'm not mistaken, they don't even break the 66 barrier!

There are benefits to SATA drives though. They may be faster in one respect (not entirely sure here): when using two drives, I would assume it's better to have SATA because they're not battling each other on one IDE cable. It's very nice as far as organizing cables, too. Though they don't look as good as round IDE cables 😛
 
Speed wise between PATA and SATA, there is no differance right now, as others have pointed out, hard drives don't come close to maxing out the bus of even ata100. Smaller cables are kinda nice, and 2 hard drives on SATA would have a little advantage over 2 drives on 1 PATA cable, if you were transfering files between them, since they wouldn't be sharing a channel, but other than that, not real advantage to SATA.
 
SATA is less of a cpu hog then ATA, could be a difference of 20-25 percent!
EX. SATA 5 percent, ATA 30 percent during full load.
 
i wasnt as impressed with my sata raptor as i thought i would be. scsi is still the way to go for fast drives.

my work pc's hard drive just died and i had to hook up an old compaq. a 800mhz xeon with scsi drives. i swear unless im heavy multi tasking, scsi makes it seem just as fast as my 2.4 p4 was.

JB
 
Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze
i wasnt as impressed with my sata raptor as i thought i would be. scsi is still the way to go for fast drives.

my work pc's hard drive just died and i had to hook up an old compaq. a 800mhz xeon with scsi drives. i swear unless im heavy multi tasking, scsi makes it seem just as fast as my 2.4 p4 was.

JB
Click to expand...

Was it the 74GB Raptor?

The 36 is known to be slower.

 
Originally posted by: wchou
SATA is less of a cpu hog then ATA, could be a difference of 20-25 percent!
EX. SATA 5 percent, ATA 30 percent during full load.
Click to expand...

Is this true? I haven't read anything about CPU utilization by SATA vs. PATA.
 
Originally posted by: wchou
SATA is less of a cpu hog then ATA, could be a difference of 20-25 percent!
EX. SATA 5 percent, ATA 30 percent during full load.
Click to expand...

Can anyone confirm this for sure? I've never heard it before and would be interested in knowing if it was true.
 
i had a PATA 100 drive before my current SATA.

between 100 and 150 i noticed a significant increase in speed.

133 to 150 isn't much of a jump, but 100 to 150 is 50% (roughly, since hard drives don't run at their full potential)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top