• 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.

Is it worth going with a SATA HD???

D

deadken

Diamond Member
I just bought another Motherboard with onboard SATA support (Gigabyte K8NSNXP, S754, NF3 Chipset, there are (2) SATA plugs controlled by the NF3 250 chipset, and (2) SATA plugs controlled by a Sil3512 controller), for my latest build/upgrade. I am seriously considering a SATA HD this time. I would like to stress right off the bat that I am not interested in a RAID array. I understand the basics of RAID, and I just don't want to be bothered with it at this time.

My basic question is: Is it worth it for me to go with a SATA HD?

I don't want to get a Raptor (well, not considering their prices) right away, since I am currently on a budget and this CPU/Mobo/HS upgrade is turning into a new build. At $80 the SATA drive I am looking at is affordable and large enough to help store some DVD ISO's.

I do have a Seagate 120GB HD (PATA 8MB) that I was going to use, but I am wondering about any performance gains to be had by using SATA. I remember reading up on SATA when it first came out. The review I read basically showed that the performance was pretty even with PATA 100/133 drives. The reviewer stated that while the SATA drive didn't offer substantial improvement over a PATA drive right now, it should be considered that AGP 1X didn't offer a huge performance gain over PCI when it came out. Only in later offerings (2x, etc..) were the gains of the new standard able to be seen.

The drive that I would most likely get would have to be a Western Digital Caviar SE 160GB SATA HD . It is the only one I can get quickly and locally (I plan on finishing this build later on today). Can anyone tell me whether there would be a substantial performance gain in using that drive over a Seagate 120GB 8MB PATA? I should mention that I do game on my system and I also burn DVD's.

-Thanks in advance for any help/info you can give me, Ken

BTW:
Rounding out the system will be a A64 3000+, XP-120, 2X512 Patriot 533 DDR, and a 6800GT @ Ultra speeds. I play BF2, Burn DVD's in addition to basic web surfing, etc...

Which controller would be best? The 'NF3 250 chipset' or the 'Sil3512' controller?

IIRC isn't there a limitation (that's less then 160GB) on WinXP? The install disc I will be using includes SP1a.
 
if you look for fast/performance then go for SATA they are 150MB than PATA top speed at 133.
 
I am afraid that you are confused if you think that a PATA actually gets close to 133 during actual use, unless something has radically changed. I think typically you might average about 60 on a 100/133 drive which is about the same that you would actually see on a SATA 150 drive. The tests I remembered seeing had basically validated why at the time WD hadn't changed over from 100 to 133. There wasn't a significant performance gain.

I am asking my question to see if anything had changed. For all I know SATA does better now. My google searchs come up with limited results and a lot are old reviews. I was hoping to find someone who had first hand knowledge.

-Thanks, Ken
 
Originally posted by: deadken
I am afraid that you are confused if you think that a PATA actually gets close to 133 during actual use, unless something has radically changed. I think typically you might average about 60 on a 100/133 drive. The tests I remembered seeing had basically validated why at the time WD hadn't changed over from 100 to 133. There wasn't a significant performance gain.

I am asking my question to see if anything had changed. For all I know SATA does better now. My google searchs come up with limited results and a lot are old reviews. I was hoping to find someone who had first hand knowledge.

-Thanks, Ken
Click to expand...

You are correct, there's NOTHING to be gained in normal use by the SATA interface.

OP, don't waste your money, stick to your PATA drive and only buy a SATA drive when you need more storage and have the extra $$$.
 
Thanks. I appreciate your reply. I was kinda hoping that things had changed for the better, but I understand that they haven't yet.
 
Have to agree with BadThad. I was a little disappointed with SATA after I built this thing. I can't make a real comparison, though, since I've never run a PATA drive on here as boot drive. PCPitstop shows my SATA as being faster than the PATA, but I never put a lot of faith in that site when it came to HD's. Also, my PATA drive is a few years older.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top