SATA 3Gb/s vs. 1.5Gb/s

[magreen]

I'm trying to figure out if SATA 3Gb/s makes any difference with today's hard drives. Specifically, if I buy a motherboard with only SATA 1.5Gb/s, is that going to slow me down in any way?

SATA 3Gb/s has a maximum transfer rate of 300 MB/s and SATA 1.5Gb/s has 150 MB/s.

Today's best hard drives seem to have a maximum read and write transfer rate of about 90 MB/s (link: Hard Drive Charts). So 150 MB/s should be more than enough, no? (I see in that link an "Interface Performance" chart which shows drives scoring 189 MB/s. But in that chart, even ATA/133 drives are scoring 189 MB/s. So I don't really understand that chart, but it still doesn't seem to show a need for SATA 3Gb/s.)

And even with using RAID to increase the overall hard drive throughput to >150MB/s, still the transfer rate between the motherboard to each drive is no greater, correct? So SATA 1.5Gb/s would still be enough.

As a sidenote, it seems to me there isn't actually a need for SATA today at all... ATA/133 with 133 MB/s is a sufficient interface for today's drives, but they all switched to SATA to have a more future-proof interface. Am I right?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good job :thumbsup:

 

[Roguestar]

Exactly. What if you buy SATA 1.5 and then in the next few months hard drive technology improves again? Always try and futureproof if it won't cost you much.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: magreen

And even with using RAID to increase the overall hard drive throughput to >150MB/s, still the transfer rate between the motherboard to each drive is no greater, correct?

A 64-bit RAID card and 64-bit bus MB would do some heavy lifting.

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: magreen

And even with using RAID to increase the overall hard drive throughput to >150MB/s, still the transfer rate between the motherboard to each drive is no greater, correct?

A 64-bit RAID card and 64-bit bus MB would do some heavy lifting.

Sorry, not sure what you mean here. The RAID card would be connected through PCI or PCI-e, and have its own SATA connectors, right? So how does SATA300 vs. SATA150 on the motherboard affect that?

 

[Blain]

64-bit RAID cards (with 64-bit MBs, of course), perform better than standard onboard controllers.
Basically > 64-bit bus vs. 32-bit bus

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: magreen
As a sidenote, it seems to me there isn't actually a need for SATA today at all... ATA/133 with 133 MB/s is a sufficient interface for today's drives, but they all switched to SATA to have a more future-proof interface. Am I right?

Basically yes. Things like SATA drives and PCI-e video cards came into the market well before anything was able to make full use of either standard. While it seems like a waste to change interface for no reason, it makes future upgrades easier because you'll actually have things like SATA in place when hardware is capable of using it to its full potential. Gigabit ethernet is the same deal. All new computers have gigabit ethernet, but you probably can't name 2 people who have gigabit routers. It's not expected you'll use these things to their full potential....... yet.

 

[Boyo]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: magreen
As a sidenote, it seems to me there isn't actually a need for SATA today at all... ATA/133 with 133 MB/s is a sufficient interface for today's drives, but they all switched to SATA to have a more future-proof interface. Am I right?

Basically yes. Things like SATA drives and PCI-e video cards came into the market well before anything was able to make full use of either standard. While it seems like a waste to change interface for no reason, it makes future upgrades easier because you'll actually have things like SATA in place when hardware is capable of using it to its full potential. Gigabit ethernet is the same deal. All new computers have gigabit ethernet, but you probably can't name 2 people who have gigabit routers. It's not expected you'll use these things to their full potential....... yet.

I agree with Shawn. I would go with the upgrades. Future proffing is always the best route.

 

[Auric]

SATA 3G spec brings more to teh party -namely: hizot swizap which may be particularly useful in combination with eSATA which is likewise part of the spec but not really excluded from being used with 1.5G controllers, as such. Also, maybe you will want to run something other than "today's hard drives" in the near future that can take advantage of higher transfer rates (think solid state rather than mechanical).

 

[magreen]

Ok, thanks all for the replies.

I understand it's a future-proofing idea, and with solid-state drives on the way, it might be not too far off.

So it seems to me that future-proofing is an added value that's worth money, like having eSATA ports or Firewire. And someone on a tight budget will choose if saving a few $ will be worth sacrificing that added value, depending on the $ saved and the added value to him.

 

[Varun]

It's not worth future proofing IMHO. Get what you need now, and the next time you upgrade you buy what you need then. Don't buy now for what may be on the market in the future, that is just absurd.

Originally posted by: Auric
SATA 3G spec brings more to teh party -namely: hizot swizap which may be particularly useful in combination with eSATA which is likewise part of the spec but not really excluded from being used with 1.5G controllers, as such. Also, maybe you will want to run something other than "today's hard drives" in the near future that can take advantage of higher transfer rates (think solid state rather than mechanical).

Hot swap was part of the original SATA spec. Solid State is a long ways off still due to many factors. Flash based HDDs are small, expensive, and have a very slow write speed, plus NAND flash has a lifespan of a million writes. Traditional solid state drives are even more expensive.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Blain
64-bit RAID cards (with 64-bit MBs, of course), perform better than standard onboard controllers.
Basically > 64-bit bus vs. 32-bit bus

You're talking about the interface between the controller and MB, not the interface between the controller and drives (which is where SATA150 versus SATA300 comes into play.) A 32-bit PCI bus can choke a controller with enough drives -- and so can a 64-bit one if it has more than 8 hard drives or so.

Unless you need hot-swap (support for it is spotty in SATA150 drives/controllers), or you are planning on daisy-chaining drives on an SAS controller, SATA300 -- at least the 300MBps part -- is pretty irrelevant. At least for magnetic hard drives; a RAM-based SSD could actually take advantage of it.

And even with using RAID to increase the overall hard drive throughput to >150MB/s, still the transfer rate between the motherboard to each drive is no greater, correct? So SATA 1.5Gb/s would still be enough.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how fast you make the link to each drive; even at "only" 150MB/sec. you're always going to be limited by the STR/seek time of the drive itself.

 

[Auric]

Okay, if hot swap was part of the original SATA spec then it must have been optional 'cause mainstream controllers lacked the capability. I appreciate semantics as much as the next anal retentive geek but in practical terms the fact remains that with SATA300 y'all are much more likely to be able to take advantage of the feature.

If the performance question is being axed then that implies the OP cares which begs the question what is the potential savings with the SATA150 mobo? Are there no other desirable features on a newer board? What about the performance of the controller itself, regardless of the SATA spec? Also, what HDDs will be used? Again, if performance is a question then that implies using HDDs whos performance apart from the interface is going to make a real difference and indeed perhaps difference in cost versus old and new mobos.

 

[Disophisis]

Whoa whoa whoa... pardon me for being a complete dunce, and this may be the wrong thread for this question, but... here it goes

I'm buying a motherboard with SATA 1.5 gb/s. Now I'm looking for hard drives but there are none that specifically say 1.5 gb/s except for a couple of raptors...

here's my blond moment...

If I were to buy a 3 gb/s drive and plug it in, would it work? Lol.

 

[StopSign]

Yes.

 

[IdaGno]

Originally posted by: Disophisis
Whoa whoa whoa... pardon me for being a complete dunce, and this may be the wrong thread for this question, but... here it goes

I'm buying a motherboard with SATA 1.5 gb/s. Now I'm looking for hard drives but there are none that specifically say 1.5 gb/s except for a couple of raptors...

here's my blond moment...

If I were to buy a 3 gb/s drive and plug it in, would it work? Lol.

My follow-on blonde moment & question:

Identical HD's (mfr & size) butcept one is an older SATA 1.5 gb/s model & the other is a newer SATA 3.0 gb/s model (SATA I vs SATA II?) - will they play nice in a RAID 0 config?

TIA.

 

[ch33zw1z]

SATAII drives can be jumpered to SATA1.0, you should be ok. Why not get two identical drives?

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
SATAII drives can be jumpered to SATA1.0, you should be ok. Why not get two identical drives?

maybe he already has the sata1 drive, went to buy another, and the manufacturer has since updated it with a sata2 interface.

 

[ch33zw1z]

maybe...maybe..

 

[IdaGno]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
SATAII drives can be jumpered to SATA1.0, you should be ok. Why not get two identical drives?

maybe he already has the sata1 drive, went to buy another, and the manufacturer has since updated it with a sata2 interface.

Precisely. Ever notice how HD "special deal sales" are limited to one/buyer? Which is how/why we end up this way.

& ch33zw1z, thx for that info. Haven't played close enough attention to SATA FAQ to have noticed that.

 

[Auric]

Hitachi do not have jumpers so if pre-configured for 300 and the 150 controller fails to negotiate the lower speed then it will not work and the drive will require configuring via software on another controller.

 

[ch33zw1z]

good tip auric :thumbsup:

 

[webley]

I don't quite follow this. If one has a Sata 2 drive connected to a modern motherboard that is qualified to handle Sata 2 (3 Gbps), why then won't it function at the very least somewhere well above the 1.5 Gbps if not near the full 3 Gbps rating?

Are the 3 Gbps ratings all just lies for the Sata 2 hard drives and mainboards currently? Why would companies lie about the functional performance specs? - I wouldn't trust them again if they don't tell the truth about the real Sata 2 specs.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: webley
I don't quite follow this. If one has a Sata 2 drive connected to a modern motherboard that is qualified to handle Sata 2 (3 Gbps), why then won't it function at the very least somewhere well above the 1.5 Gbps if not near the full 3 Gbps rating?

Are the 3 Gbps ratings all just lies for the Sata 2 hard drives and mainboards currently? Why would companies lie about the functional performance specs? - I wouldn't trust them again if they don't tell the truth about the real Sata 2 specs.

because no hdd atm physically move more than ~90MB/s str for sata/pata and even the newest greatest u320/sas scsis can do ~125MB/s str.

looks like you need to stop trusting all kinds of comanies - just like the ram manf that say their ram is sli certified????? wtf is that about. sata 1 or 150 is fine and won't be taken over for some time. some of the sata 2 or 300 may offer some ncq/tcq benefits, but that is about it. oh yeah, sometimes they have very high burst speeds, which really don't mean much but that can be over 150MB/s if that makes you feel any better....

 

[webley]

Thanks Bob, I do tend to trust specs to be at least ballpark and think it's false advertising to tell that up to double the rate is their spec if false. I knew they weren't perfect but if there's not much difference150 to 300, it's mostly a selling gimmic that may do nothing but cost more. Thanks for the burst speed concept; it helps a little. I read your post the other day about the burst question-as to what exactly it is. I suddelly wish I hadn't spent the premium for a Sata 300 drive and mainboard. Thanks again for the help Bob. 'Preciate it. webley