Sata 150MB/s or 3GB/s

[overst33r]

im getting confused, is 3GB/s ATA-300/ SATA-II?

 

[biostud]

SATA 150Mbyte/s
SATA-II 300Mbyte/s

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: biostud
SATA 150Mbyte/s
SATA-II 300Mbyte/s

 

[overst33r]

thanks, it caught my eye when i read that seagate just released 7200.9 'cudas.

 

[Continuity27]

Keep in mind, no current hard drive can max out even IDE 133, let alone SATA 150 or SATA 300.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: biostud
SATA 150Mbyte/s
SATA-II 300Mbyte/s

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Continuity27
Keep in mind, no current hard drive can max out even IDE 133, let alone SATA 150 or SATA 300.

why is that? they're at like 70 mb/s right?

 

[kleinwl]

If no hard drive can max out a ATA133 then why have anyone bothered developing SATA I, II, and III?

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: kleinwl
If no hard drive can max out a ATA133 then why have anyone bothered developing SATA I, II, and III?

Marketing gimmick, and it makes for a forced change to a new connection eventually = $$$. The only possible drives that max out SATA I are enterprise level 15K/20K RPM drives - normal consumer drives will not max out even SATA I for a while.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: kleinwl
If no hard drive can max out a ATA133 then why have anyone bothered developing SATA I, II, and III?

II adds hubbing, hot-swapping, and NCQ as part of the spec, the speed boost is more of something just thrown on as an extra.

 

[Cheezeit]

Originally posted by: mariok2006
thanks, it caught my eye when i read that seagate just released 7200.9 'cudas.

they did?

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Cheezeit

Originally posted by: mariok2006
thanks, it caught my eye when i read that seagate just released 7200.9 'cudas.

they did?

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/4682/ sorry they didnt release them, they "announced" them.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
II adds hubbing, hot-swapping, and NCQ as part of the spec, the speed boost is more of something just thrown on as an extra.

Yeah, adds those features, but from what I've seen, NCQ doesn't give much of a boost in gaming or regular usage....hence why its primarily a server feature.

Hotswapping - my gigabyte board for my P4 northwood can do that?? its SATA I....at least they say you can do that...never tried

speed boost...300 mb/s....yeah, most harddrives can barely push 60 mb/s avg transfer speed....just a single one of my WD raptors can hit 100 on a good day....two raptors in RAID can do around 140 mb/s avg, and I've gotten 245 peak.

Will drives ever push 133, let alone 150? I don't think so, not for another 3-4 years. When we get a 1T drive...haha (1 terabyte may be sooner than that though, they are already at 500 gb)

 

[RampantAndroid]

Originally posted by: ariafrost
Marketing gimmick, and it makes for a forced change to a new connection eventually = $$$. The only possible drives that max out SATA I are enterprise level 15K/20K RPM drives - normal consumer drives will not max out even SATA I for a while.

Actually, I've seen tests where the 10k rpm 74 gb raptors (and 36 gb jobs to a lesser extent) have trounced the 20K RPM seagate drives!!! Go western digital!

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: kleinwl
If no hard drive can max out a ATA133 then why have anyone bothered developing SATA I, II, and III?

Well for one thing, you must admit SATA cables are much nicer than even the rounded IDE cables (and WAY better than non-rounded ribbon cables).

Besides that there's features like hot-swapability, NCQ, etc. But as far as speed goes, there's no benefit in the interface itself.

 

[RampantAndroid]

well, SATA cables have nothing to do with going from sata I to SATA II aside from the fact they are putting a latch on the connectors.....

IDE cables have 40 pins, only 20 are needed, the other 20 are to verify the data transmitted....SATA has only 7 conductors...

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: RampantAndroid
well, SATA cables have nothing to do with going from sata I to SATA II aside from the fact they are putting a latch on the connectors.....

IDE cables have 40 pins, only 20 are needed, the other 20 are to verify the data transmitted....SATA has only 7 conductors...

Motherboard manufacturers want money.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: Continuity27
Keep in mind, no current hard drive can max out even IDE 133, let alone SATA 150 or SATA 300.

why is that? they're at like 70 mb/s right?

SATA speed is the interface speed, and not the actual drive throughput. Interface speed needs to be higher than drive throughput so you can transfer data that comes from the cache quickly if you need to and it has to be kept well ahead of HD throughputs so that infrastructure is in place well before hardware starts bumping against the limits.

Also, interfaces are relatively cheap, you don't want to limit your throughput from the interface, do you? That would be like a 300 W per channel car audio amp then putting a 10A fuse in it. (10 amps * 13v = 130W = 60 W per channel capability)

Actual drive throughputs are mostly dictated by the head/platter interaction. The head can only read bits as fast as they pass under it, thus a function of linear recording density and drive RPM.

 

[neonerd]

Originally posted by: Continuity27

Originally posted by: biostud
SATA 150Mbyte/s
SATA-II 300Mbyte/s

NOT true

SATA-I was developed for two speeds....1.50 and 3

when you see people put SATA-II (3Gbyte/s, it's NOT really SATA-II

It's in fact still SATA-I

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: neonerd
when you see people put SATA-II (3Gbyte/s, it's NOT really SATA-II

Nobody would put SATA-II (3Gbytes/s) because that is ~10x faster than SATA II is capable of.

Gb = gigaBITS
GB = gigaBYTES

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: Concillian

Originally posted by: neonerd
when you see people put SATA-II (3Gbyte/s, it's NOT really SATA-II

Nobody would put SATA-II (3Gbytes/s) because that is ~10x faster than SATA II is capable of.

Gb = gigaBITS
GB = gigaBYTES

And even in this scenario, a bit isn't what it normally is. 8 bits to a byte normally, but in this case (as with DVD capacities) 10 bits = 1 byte.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Continuity27

Originally posted by: Concillian

Originally posted by: neonerd
when you see people put SATA-II (3Gbyte/s, it's NOT really SATA-II

Nobody would put SATA-II (3Gbytes/s) because that is ~10x faster than SATA II is capable of.

Gb = gigaBITS
GB = gigaBYTES

And even in this scenario, a bit isn't what it normally is. 8 bits to a byte normally, but in this case (as with DVD capacities) 10 bits = 1 byte.

No.

It's a conversion factor of 10 because of some extra overhead in the SATA communications involving the use of 2 more bits(I forget what they're used for, but if you know modems, it's similar to start & stop bits), so it actually takes 10 bits to transbit an 8 bit data segment.

 

[RampantAndroid]

1 byte = 8 bits

 

[Yanagi]

Originally posted by: RampantAndroid
well, SATA cables have nothing to do with going from sata I to SATA II aside from the fact they are putting a latch on the connectors.....

IDE cables have 40 pins, only 20 are needed, the other 20 are to verify the data transmitted....SATA has only 7 conductors...

Actually I believe the other 20 are ground to prevent magnetic intererference from the other 20 cables trasnferring the data.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Hmmmm, I'll look that up...either way, 20 of the conductors are "extra"