PATA vs SATA boot time?

[halfadder]

The fastest PC I have seen boot is actually a 2.6 GHz P4 on an 845 chipset! The board is Intel brand and has some sort of "quick boot" BIOS setting. The drive is a pretty fast Western Digital PATA (ATA-100 I think). My 3.0 GHz P4 boots a little slower, but then I have more stuff installed. My 3200+ boots even slower, but most AMD systems I've seen are like that. They all boot fast, but faster is better... 😀

I've heard rumors that on many boards, Windows will actually boot faster from a (fast) PATA drive due to BIOS, drivers, and/or mobo issues in initiating the SATA interface.

Has anyone actually tested this?

 

[Andres3605]

my 3000+ with seagate 7200.7 has virtually same boot time to my friends p4 2.6 and 2*hitachi satas raid 0

 

[islandtechengineers]

how about the stats? Have you timed your rig?

my old p4 1.7, on a 845 chipset and XPpro clocked at 28 secs - which is decent, but i would love to have a system under 20 (is it possible/anyone accomplish?).

 

[bob4432]

mine boots slow because i run a scsi system drive. i would rather have the performance when the machine is on vs having it take 15-30 seconds less at startup. boot time means nothing.

 

[AristoV300]

If the board is running RAID or doesn't have native SATA support then yes the boot time will be slower due the drivers having to load first.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: bob4432
mine boots slow because i run a scsi system drive. i would rather have the performance when the machine is on vs having it take 15-30 seconds less at startup. boot time means nothing.

Totally agree that performance when needed is more important than boot times.

 

[GprophetB]

Interesting, my PIII 1.0 ghz 512 PC133 (msconfig nothing is set to start on startup) boots in 26 (to the windows xp login screen)