IDE vs SATA Optical drive

[lostnfound53]

I have been searching for articles/benchmarks that compare IDE vs SATA Optical drive performance. Can anyone shed some light regarding this? I am mostly interested in throughput and CPU usage. Thanks!

 

[manimal]

Well max sustained speeds to differ depenendant on spec. ATA 66 is slower than ATA 100 etc. Current SATA spec is a bit-not alot- faster than than the best ATA has to offer but offers a host of other improvements such as jumperless config and my personal fave !!!! No more bulky ata cables in my case. I went with a cheap SATA DVDRom and all my HDs on my main system are sata and I have to say case airflow is better, mobo is less cluttered, and I didnt have to set any jumpers.

Alot of MOBO mgfs are now going with 1 ata connection as well. Based on your post tho throughput on a sata 7200.10 drive over my old ata drives is noticeable faster on the same system. Boots take half as long, and CPU usuage while writing files is still about the same in XP and a tad less in vista. CPU usage while moving big files has always been one of the worst designed aspects of Windows in general. Even after multicore and multithread became the norm rather than the exception windows never really cought up to what your machine could do.

 

[lostnfound53]

Thanks for the info! My primary concern with a SATA DVD-RW drive is that since it is on the same bus as the HDs, will r/w operations on HD affect burning? I am concerned that SATA optical drives would burn more coasters than an IDE one.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: lostnfound53
Thanks for the info! My primary concern with a SATA DVD-RW drive is that since it is on the same bus as the HDs, will r/w operations on HD affect burning? I am concerned that SATA optical drives would burn more coasters than an IDE one.

Well your IDE drives were on the same bus. IDE and SATA (most boards) are controlled by the south bridge chipset. There really isn't a issue with burning on SATA fro ma data source that is SATA.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: lostnfound53
Thanks for the info! My primary concern with a SATA DVD-RW drive is that since it is on the same bus as the HDs, will r/w operations on HD affect burning? I am concerned that SATA optical drives would burn more coasters than an IDE one.

It's far better than it was on IDE. With SATA at least, each device has it's own dedicated bandwith.

 

[Captante]

As far as I know all SATA optical drives are actually just IDE's with a built in SATA-to-PATA converter so performance should be more or less identical... case airflow can benefit from the elimination of ribbon cables though.

 

[Fallengod]

Originally posted by: Captante
As far as I know all SATA optical drives are actually just IDE's with a built in SATA-to-PATA converter so performance should be more or less identical... case airflow can benefit from the elimination of ribbon cables though.

Yup. Exactly correct. Performance should be exactly the same.

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: manimal
Well max sustained speeds to differ depenendant on spec. ATA 66 is slower than ATA 100 etc. Current SATA spec is a bit-not alot- faster than than the best ATA has to offer

Not true. An optical drive's data throughput can't even begin to come close to the limits of IDE bandwidth. So the PATA drive will perform exactly the same as the SATA one.

but offers a host of other improvements such as jumperless config and my personal fave !!!!No more bulky ata cables in my case. I went with a cheap SATA DVDRom and all my HDs on my main system are sata and I have to say case airflow is better, mobo is less cluttered, and I didnt have to set any jumpers. Alot of MOBO mgfs are now going with 1 ata connection as well.

These are the only advantages of SATA optical drives.

Based on your post tho throughput on a sata 7200.10 drive over my old ata drives is noticeable faster on the same system. Boots take half as long, and CPU usuage while writing files is still about the same in XP and a tad less in vista.

This has nothing to do with them being SATA hard drives. It's because they're just faster drives with faster access times and faster transfer speeds. If they fitted an IDE interface onto that 7200.10 drive it would work just as well... today's hard drives don't reach 100 MB/s throughput, which is the limit of ATA/100 -- and ATA/133 can reach 133 MB/s. The whole SATA thing is to give bandwidth headroom for the future... plus it helps in marketing.

CPU usage while moving big files has always been one of the worst designed aspects of Windows in general. Even after multicore and multithread became the norm rather than the exception windows never really cought up to what your machine could do.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[Steve]

Sounds like someone's never heard of DMA.

 

[Steve]

nm, dp