Please help me decide between IDE or SCSI!!!!!

[jagr10]

I am planning on buying the Plextor 12x10x32x cd burner, but I don't know if I should buy a SCSI or IDE. I know that a scsi needs a controller and uses its own resources rather than the computers.

I would like to know exactly how much faster is a SCSI over an IDE at the same speed(12x10x32x). Is it by a wide margin or nominal?

Also, with the new BURN PROOF Technology, I heard that you can use the computer while burning. Would the computer be really slow with the IDE while burning?

Keep in mind that I would be using a 1.2GHz AMD Thunderbird with 256 Ram.

I am contemplating this because of price issues.

 

[Turbopit]

How much burning do plan on doing?

 

[sohcrates]

scsi burners are naturally "burn-proof" in that they avoid using the cpu as much as IDE burners...therefore you can in theory use the computer while burning and not worry about it.

my friend just got the 12x IDE plextor though and it is basically the same thing...it's cool because if the buffer fills up, it has the ability to stop burning and continue where it left off when the buffer is cleared out.

as far as speed, there will be no noticeable difference between the scsi and ide setup..and it will certainly be more expensive because you'll have to get a scsi card.

there's a bunch of reviews about the IDE 12x plextor out there, check them out and you'll see why the IDE is a better deal these days...

 

[jagr10]

Turbopit, I plan on doing lots of burning. I do lots of website and database design and like to back up my projects on cd's every other day. I also like to burn music (he he).

Sohcrates, thanks for the response. I have a burner now (really slow creatove burner) and when I try to use the computer while burning, the burning process stops and I get a coaster. Not to mention using the computer while burning is really slow. I just want to be able to burn while I use the computer without andy problems. If IDE's basically the same as far as speed is concerned then i'll go for IDE. Another thing is that I don't want conflicts between a scsi burner and say an IDE hard Drive or DVD player.

 

[sohcrates]

as long as you get the plextor with burn-proof, you can get an IDE and use the computer all you want while burning.

if you get an ide that's doesn't have the burn-proof , though, then i would not suggest doing so. buffer underruns are very easy to make and will screw up your burn ASAP if you're doing to much with your computer while burning on a "normal" ide cd burner.

then again, with a 12x burner, a whole cd will only take about 6 minutes, so you won't be THAT inconvenienced!

 

[Sohcan]

Unless you already have a SCSI controller and other SCSI devices, I'd just go with IDE. The SCSI version might have lower CPU utilization, but in a case like this where the drive is identical, there won't be much of a difference between a SCSI and IDE burner. SCSI hard drives are faster than IDE not because of the interface, but because higher rotational rates and manufacturing tolerances.

 

[Leo V]

It was always my long-term goal to have an all-SCSI system: a mobo with a built-in Adaptec, and a SCSI disk and CDRW. However, each time my SCSI options are about $300 more expensive than IDE. So I'm using an ATA100 IBM 75GXP and a Plextor 12/10/32A.

 

[jagr10]

LEO V, what does the "A" stand for when you wrote 12/10/32A?

 

[Sir Fredrick]

SCSI is almost always worth it. BURN proof makes IDE a lot closer, but if you consistently get buffer underruns and the burner has to stop and fill up the buffer again, burns will take longer.

 

[Pariah]

"A" denotes IDE for Plextor drives.

IDE takes 0% more CPU time when burning than SCSI of the same speed drive. That should not be a deciding factor. If you view a 12x Plextor as an option, I would recommend going with a 16x TDK drive instead which would cost less and perform better. SCSI used to be the dominant optical interface, now as far as performance goes, HD's are the only SCSI peripheral worth the extra money.

 

[jagr10]

THanks Pariah. Actually, it's the prices of SCSI hard drives that brought me to the SCSI vs IDE question. If dvd's were more common in scsi format and hard drives weren't so expensive in scsi I would have gone with the scsi, but with those high prices, I might just go with the IDE since it's basically the same and I won't get any conflicts with other devices as I would with the SCSI burner.

 

[Soccerman]

actually pariah, SCSI *DOES* use less CPU time.

here's what I think, shoot for a SCSI, that way, later on if you have to get a new hard drive, you won't have to get the controller card then (and you would still have an option of IDE vs SCSI, only this time price wouldn't be offset as much becuase of the card).

 

[Leo V]

"If you view a 12x Plextor as an option, I would recommend going with a 16x TDK drive instead which would cost less and perform better"

I'd reconsider that. As a 12x Plextor owner, I'll point out that this drive has benifits aside from burning. It's the highest-quality CD reader I've encountered, by a mile. It can perform flawless digital extraction (using Exact Audio Copy for accuracy), at ~8X speed, on scratched CD's that most CD-ROMs refuse to even play normally (or stutter horribly)! Only now could I build a full-quality CD music library. You get more out of a good brand than just a bunch of specs.

 

[Pariah]

You're right Soccerman, take a look at the convincing CPU win SCSI has in this comparison of 6 drives:

Storage Review

Quick recap, the lowest CPU was SCSI at 2.78%, but SCSI was also the highest at 3.08%. Take a look at the Plextor IDE and SCSI 12x drives, IDE is actually minimally lower.

CPU utilization is an irrelevant term with today's drives and interfaces.

Need more proof?

CDRINFO

Notice how there is a linear CPU increase relative to read speed, regardless of interface.

Leo V, That's what a CDROM drive is for. With a price difference between a SCSI Plextor 12x and a TDK IDE you can pay for half an UltraPlex 40 drive which would be a far superior combination than a Plextor CDRW by itself.

 

[Soccerman]

cough.. ok, CDRoms don't appear to differ (much), (actually I still think those results don't indicate SCSI not having better CPU utilization), but what about Hard drives, where they use the CPU the most (alot more then CDROM's)?

 

[Pariah]

Throughput has more of an effect on CPU utilization than interface. The drive that can maintain a higher STR is most likely the drive that has a higher CPU Utilization. SCSI might have an advantage at times, but it will be unnoticable by any human during use. If you can detect the difference between 3% and 5% for example, you are a far more observant person than I.

 

[Soccerman]

ahh I see (I think).

have you personally tried out an All IDE vs and All SCSI system on similar computer rigs?

of course, the problem there is that SCSI drives simply have better access times (the hard drives I mean).

so why is it that the CPU is used at all, say, from hard drive to CDRRW drive transfers of data?

 

[jagr10]

I heard that using a SCSI burner with an IDE hard drive has conflicts. Same with a SCSI burner and SCSI DVD drive. Is this true? In other words, if I try to burn some files from an IDE hard drive to a SCSI burner, will I encounter problems?

 

[Soccerman]

I wouldn't think so, but I've not tried IDE to SCSI burns before, so here's a friendly bump! ^

 

[Vinny N]

jagr10:

Definitely untrue.

For the longest time, before I went all SCSI, I had IDE hard drives and a SCSI burner. Not a single problem.

The only thing you lose by having both is an irq or two

 

[Pariah]

That's not true Jag. I had a Plextor SCSI cdr and IDE drives and never encountered any problems.

Here's a list of drives I've used in my system which has changed a bit from time to time:

Maxtor DM40+
Maxtor DM60+
Maxtor DM80
Quantum KA+
Qauntum LM+
Quantum Atlas 10K II
WD 7200 caviar
WD WD400BB
Seagate Cheetah X15

 

[borealiss]

i would just get the eide plextor. getting a controller card for a scsi burner is nice if you have the cash like soccerman suggested, but if you plan on adding hard disks to this controller card, you're going to want one with separate lvd and narrow scsi channels which can set you back a good lump of money. unless you start adding scsi hard drives that are 50 pin. then that defeats the purpose of scsi altogether since drives that old are slower than any modern eide hard drive. if you're just going to get a narrow scsi card for the burner only, just go eide.

as far as conflicts between disks, you should be able to run any combination of eide/scsi without problems given they're properly configured, but i've run into the occasional hiccup where a cheap generic drive won't coexist with others.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

I have friends with IDE burning systems, and despite what you continually claim Pariah, they experience higher CPU utilization, and the problems associated with it. Not everyone has the fastest computer in the world, but these are 500-800MHz computers, which is faster than my PIII450 (though I'm now running dual, I wasn't a short while ago). They can't do much while they burn or they create coasters. This is from HD to CD, on different channels. Also, most people only have two IDE channels, and juggling more than 2 devices gets tricky and it's impossible to get optimal performance from all of the devices simultaneously, unless you buy an add in controller.

On my all SCSI system, I can do whatever the hell I want while I'm burning without worry of causing buffer underruns. And yes this was true before I went dual. I have never come across an all IDE system that even approaches the same level of performance. I am not saying that it does not exist, it quite possibly could, but SCSI level performance is more attainable through SCSI.

 

[jagr10]

he he, seems like it's a personal preference thing to most people. So if most people are saying that there are no conflicts between scsi and IDE, then I might as well go scsi. I don't mind buying a good scsi controller if I have to. I'm building a new computer (all black) and I wanted to decide how to build the system (mostly scsi or all IDE). I'm still a little indecisive, but I'm leaning towars scsi right now.

I figured now's a good time to decide how to build my system.

Just wondering, is it easy to setup all the channels on a scsi controller? And how do you ensure it's setup best to work with IDE components?

Thanks for the responses so far.