• 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 SATA all that better than IDE?

M

mAsTAd

Member
I know it is a little better but is it worth all the extra cash? You can get a 80 GB SATA for the price of a 160GB IDE. What is the exact speed in mb/s?
 
No speed difference. SATA tops out at 150MB/sec. (which is slightly faster than ATA133's 133MB/sec.), but no single modern hard drive is going to push more than 40-50MB/sec. at most. The advantages of SATA are:

1) Support for more devices.
2) Support for hot-swap.
3) Support (eventually) for SAS (Serially Attached SCSI), which will in theory let you run server-level SCSI drives on cheap SATA controllers.
4) Thinner, lighter, and less fragile cables (since it's a serial interface).
5) Support for higher speeds (SATA2 will be 300MB/sec.), which is very useful for RAID arrays on servers, and along those lines...
6) Most SATA controllers (even consumer-level ones) offer RAID, which is very useful for some kinds of workstations and servers (although not so much for regular desktop use).

There is no speed difference between 7200RPM SATA and IDE drives. Western Digital's 10KRPM "Raptor" SATA drives *are* noticeably faster, however.
 
So if I build a computer now, there is no point in getting a 7200 rpm Sata over a 7200 rpm IDE except for better wiring. I could get a 160GB instead of a 80 GB for the same price.
 
Don't forget that SATA drives use less power.

The price difference isn't that large. The 160GB must be a no name or cheap brand if it is the same price as an 80GB SATA. Or else its a special deal. You should be able to get SATA drives for about $5 more.

For HDD which are more likely to be re-used later then you will want to get the one that will be able to be used longer. While I'm sure IDE will remain on motherboards for some time to come, SATA will replace it and will be the dominant connection, so I would recommend SATA. This is just my opinion though, so if you can get a good 160gig for the same price as an 80 gig SATA, go for the 160GB.
 
Originally posted by: mAsTAd
So if I build a computer now, there is no point in getting a 7200 rpm Sata over a 7200 rpm IDE except for better wiring. I could get a 160GB instead of a 80 GB for the same price.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
Originally posted by: hahher
aren't the physical sata connectors flimsy? doesn't fit snug into back of hdd?
Click to expand...

correct, the connectors dont fit tight into the HD or my motherboards onboard SATA ports and will easily fall out, has happened to me a couple of times while working on my comp. I don't think buying an SATA drive was worth it for me cause theres hardly a performance increase, although my SATA drive cost only $10 more than the IDE one, so i didnt lose much $$. I recommend just getting the bigger drive
 
How much for that 160GB PATA drive?

$100 SATA HD at newegg

That one is only 7 dollars more than it's PATA counterpart. I'm not sure what drives you were looking at where you can get twice the storage for the same dollar amount. Are you sure you weren't looking at SCSI drives?😀

Edit: Oh and about the connectors being flimsy; That is why you aren't supposed to fiddle around inside your comp while it is running. However I agree that they do not fit as snuggly as PATA cable.
 
I don't know what the fuss is over the connectors being flimsy. I have a 80gig WD SATA drive and it would take some force to remove the cable by bumping into it.
 
Originally posted by: Captain_Howdy
How much for that 160GB PATA drive?

$100 SATA HD at newegg

That one is only 7 dollars more than it's PATA counterpart. I'm not sure what drives you were looking at where you can get twice the storage for the same dollar amount. Are you sure you weren't looking at SCSI drives?😀

Edit: Oh and about the connectors being flimsy; That is why you aren't supposed to fiddle around inside your comp while it is running. However I agree that they do not fit as snuggly as PATA cable.
Click to expand...


There was a deal(dunno if it's still goin') that had a 160GB PATA hard drive for $60 or so and I know you can get a 80GB Hitachi 7K250 SATA drive @ NewEgg for around $66.
 
If the prices are close(dunno as I haven't priced any hard drives in over 6 months) I'd consider SATA as it probably won't be long before motherboards that are SATA only will begin to ship. It'll probably start with just a few at first, but eventually onboard PATA controllers will be hard to find.
 
No SATA is slower, becuase it only has 7 pins vs 80.
Everyone knows the more pins, the faster the transfer rate

😉
 
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
No SATA is slower, becuase it only has 7 pins vs 80.
Everyone knows the more pins, the faster the transfer rate

😉
Click to expand...

OMG you must work at Best Buy you're so smart.

😉
 
1) Yes (Assuming you mean the interfaces ParallelATA [PATA] vs SerialATA [SATA])
2) All modern drives are IDE (Integrated Drive Electronics)
 
We are comparing 80GB SATA150 vs 160GB ATA100 right?

Benchmark tests found all over the internet regarding SATA150 vs ATA100 really shows a marked increased in performance. ATA100 has the 100 as the theoretical mb/s speed but actual speeds recorded are at 85. SATA150 has the theoretical speed of 150 with real benchies at 102 to 110 speed.

You didn't mention spindle speed and cache sizes which makes a tremendous difference in real-world performance.
 
Just a minor point - Serial attached SCSI (SAS) will support SATA, but not the other way round.

If you have a server with a SAS controller, you could choose from high-performance, high-price SAS drives, or low-performance, bulk storage SATA drives.

However, you would not be able to connect a SAS drive to a SATA controller (I think the connectors are slightly different, SAS has more pins) - so forget about connecting a bank of 15k rpm SAS drives to your SATA RAID controller.

SAS also has support for features that SATA doesn't - like port expanders or 'hubs' allowing you to connect 8 or 12 drives to a single SAS port, or dual-port SAS drives for extra reliability and performance.
 
Originally posted by: PhoenixOrion
We are comparing 80GB SATA150 vs 160GB ATA100 right?

Benchmark tests found all over the internet regarding SATA150 vs ATA100 really shows a marked increased in performance. ATA100 has the 100 as the theoretical mb/s speed but actual speeds recorded are at 85. SATA150 has the theoretical speed of 150 with real benchies at 102 to 110 speed.

You didn't mention spindle speed and cache sizes which makes a tremendous difference in real-world performance.
Click to expand...

Uhm... no.

No single PATA drive can support a STR of 85MB/s yet, I think that the highest is just shy of 70MB/s. (Seagate's new 100GB-per-platter drives, AFAIK.) There is definately no single SATA drive that can push a STR of "102 to 110" (assume MB/s) speed.

Please, show me these benchmarks.

Right now, there is no performance advantage of SATA over PATA at all, except for the fact that you can only have a single drive on a SATA channel, whereas if you connect two to a PATA channel, they have to share the overall bus bandwidth if they are both being accessed frequently.

There is also a small speed hit on the SATA drives that are actually PATA drives with a SATA bridge chip onboard, so in those cases, all other things being equal, the SATA models will be slower than the PATA models.

Not to mention, the cable-noise issue, the current SATA cables are actually much less immune to noise than a proper 80-wire PATA cable is. The newer cables in the SATA-2 specs should fix this issue though, hopefully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top