• 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.

SATA hard drives?

to my knowledge, 3.0gb/s is not supported yet. I could be wrong -_-
oh and the seagate 7200.9 series are the newest and possibly fastest 7200rpm HDDs to date.
 
3.0Gb/s (three gigabits per second) is the second generation of SATA's maximum throughput. The world's fastest SATA drive only reaches 72 megabytes per second or ~.56Gb/s. So the interface speed is largely irrelevant
 
Originally posted by: ribbon13
3.0Gb/s (three gigabits per second) is the second generation of SATA's maximum throughput. The world's fastest SATA drive only reaches 72 megabytes per second or ~.56Gb/s. So the interface speed is largely irrelevant
Click to expand...

kinda confusing...
so did i just buy a more expensive drive for less voume?
or is this SATA drive quicker than most?
(they seem to be flaunting that 3gb/s alot too...)
 
It means you got sucked into the hype. The 3Gb/s refers to the interface speed not the actual maximum burst speed of the harddrive.

Just because a car may have a speedometer which shows 200mph doesn't mean it can actually drive that fast.
 
kinda confusing...
so did i just buy a more expensive drive for less voume?
or is this SATA drive quicker than most?
(they seem to be flaunting that 3gb/s alot too...)
Click to expand...

Actually, the Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 has the potential to be a very good piece of hardware. AFAIK it's too new for there to be any reviews, but I expect it to do well against similar offerings from WD, Maxtor and Hitachi.
 
3.0Gbp/s is exactly what the others said. it's referred to as SATA II. SATA is 1.5Gbp/s. the seagates are benchmarked as the fastest gaming hard drives. good choice. it is a little expensive but oh well. it's just $15
 
SATA 3.0gbps is not at all important, as stated, no drive comes close to maxing out the older 1.5gbps standard and probably won't. What is more important is support for NCQ, which can actually affect performance, though still not by that much. Haven't seen a performance review of the new Seagate 7200.9, but the Maxtor 300GB 16MB cache drives are the fastest 7200RPM SATA drives out according to Storage Review. Segate will give you a better warranty and reliability though.
 
Originally posted by: JoHo22
Originally posted by: ribbon13
3.0Gb/s (three gigabits per second) is the second generation of SATA's maximum throughput. The world's fastest SATA drive only reaches 72 megabytes per second or ~.56Gb/s. So the interface speed is largely irrelevant
Click to expand...

kinda confusing...
so did i just buy a more expensive drive for less voume?
or is this SATA drive quicker than most?
(they seem to be flaunting that 3gb/s alot too...)
Click to expand...

was clear to me...
you know what rpm means, right?
BFonnes
 
Originally posted by: JoHo22
well...
my hats off to you all...
I am now more confused than when i asked my question...
Click to expand...

From what I am reading, your purchased a SATA 2.5 HDD (originally referred to as SATA II). The 3.0gb/s means nothing in real world performance as we still cannot max out the older SATA standard. The only real nice thing is the NCQ (though some say this does not help at all) which was all-ready present on some of the non 2.5 SATA drives.

What is nice is that you got one of the new Seagates and they are almost always in the top for performance and reliability. You might have paid a little more than you should have but you did get a "bleeding-edge" product that very few have even reviewed yet. Stick with it and enjoy knowing you have something new and "cool" and know that you got a good drive from a good company.

-spike
 
I've never really fully understood what the limiting factor is in terms of 'preventing' these drives from reaching the theoretically possible speed of the interface. Is it that the drives themselves can only output data at a certain rate, and if so, why is that? Is it the rpm's, or some other aspect of the drive? Anyone care to educate me on this? (I had a great article on this subject saved or bookmarked somewhere awhile back, but I can't seem to find it.)

AFAIK, no 'regular' drives can even utilize the data transfer speed potential of the conventional IDE spec (133 theoretical max, right?), let alone specs with even greater potential like 150. Again, what prevents them from doing so?

Lastly, is there any reason whatsoever (other than rounded cables) to buy a serial HD, since they too, as I understand it, can't utilize the interface potential either? (For discussion purposes, let's exclude 10,000-rpm Raptors from the equation.)

 
i dont think they just slapped "3.0Gb/s" on a product for no reason...
if its just a marketing ploy to get geeks like me to buy them for speed...
well, they got me...
but i guess from what everyone is saying...
this drive is faster than IDE hard drives...
thats all i need to know at this point to feel "good" about my purchase.
sure i feel like new egg pwned me, but whatever, you live and learn.
But i made sure i went with seagate, cause i know its a brand that everyone trusts.
 
The burst speeds seem to be reaching the IDE/Sata-I limits. e.g. my Samsung SATA-II reaches about 129 mb/s with sustained of about 63. This seems a vast improvement over earlier HDDs. But yes, other than ncq (of which the benefits in any case are not clear) there does not seem to be any real reason to go SATA-II.
 
Originally posted by: Ken90630
I've never really fully understood what the limiting factor is in terms of 'preventing' these drives from reaching the theoretically possible speed of the interface. Is it that the drives themselves can only output data at a certain rate, and if so, why is that? Is it the rpm's, or some other aspect of the drive? Anyone care to educate me on this? (I had a great article on this subject saved or bookmarked somewhere awhile back, but I can't seem to find it.)

AFAIK, no 'regular' drives can even utilize the data transfer speed potential of the conventional IDE spec (133 theoretical max, right?), let alone specs with even greater potential like 150. Again, what prevents them from doing so?

Lastly, is there any reason whatsoever (other than rounded cables) to buy a serial HD, since they too, as I understand it, can't utilize the interface potential either? (For discussion purposes, let's exclude 10,000-rpm Raptors from the equation.)
Click to expand...
I've posted this before, so forgive me if some of you have read this in another thread that I wrote. Basically, Ken, the transfer rate is the maximum rate an HD can move data to the CPU/Memory bus, provided that:

- The info in question is not in CPU cache; and
- it is not in RAM; and
- it IS in the HD cache.

Now, if the first two are met, then there is no real need for the HD, as it is never accessed. If the last one of these conditions cannot be met however, then the HD has to go to what is recorded on the platters of the HD. Now unless the head of the HD happens to be at the EXACT spot the data is question is located (you'd have better chance winning the lottery -- Think about how many sectors are on a HD), it has to look for it. Now it all becomes a question of RPM -- how fast the platters rotate, and seek time -- a timing encompassing how much time it takes for a head to move to the right track on the platter, read it, and throw the info to the CPU.

HDs can only spin so fast since it it a physical movement, and 7200 RPM has pretty much been the standard speed for quite some number of years. Add to that if there was a way to reach over 10000 RPM, you start to have serious heat issues. I think the next logical step in the next 5 years or so will be flash memory HDs or some derivative thereof, as they don't require moving components.

As for your last question, people buy SATA drives merely as a consequence. It is the same price as a IDE, so why not?

It's just like PCI-E cards. People already have a hard enough time saturating the 4x AGP bus, let alone the 8x AGP, so why do we need 16x PCI?? Because all the latest cards with high GPU are on 16x PCI. Same thing with SATA.
 
Originally posted by: JoHo22
i dont think they just slapped "3.0Gb/s" on a product for no reason...
if its just a marketing ploy to get geeks like me to buy them for speed...
well, they got me...
but i guess from what everyone is saying...
this drive is faster than IDE hard drives...
thats all i need to know at this point to feel "good" about my purchase.
sure i feel like new egg pwned me, but whatever, you live and learn.
But i made sure i went with seagate, cause i know its a brand that everyone trusts.
Click to expand...

By the way, I think that your seagate drive supports NCQ. (I know because I wanted to get that drive over a Samsung Spinpoint 200 GB just because of that). However, you will require an NCQ capable Mobo or controller to take advantage of that). NCQ does actually help, from what I hear, if you access alot of random files really quickly.
 
Is it possible for a controller that does not support NCQ to support it in the future with a firmware upgrade?
 
All I know is that my current SATA-II/ncq with nVidia nForce 4 ultra seems a hell of a lot faster than my SATA-1 on Intel 865 on a p4 2.4 as far as i/o is concerned. Both are 7200 RPM HDDs.

While pure speed may not be addressed by newer tech., other issues of power, stability, response, etc. may well be.
 
umm, quick question,
1/2 my rig showed up today.
hd, ram, fan, and processor.
case and mobo will be here tomorrow.
...do i need a SATA card to hook this thing up?
guy down the hall just said i might need one...
but if I have a SATA cable, will I be ok?
:-/
 
update!
I need a sata card,
there is not sata plugs on my mobo... im a fool.
someone wanna assist me in finding a not so lame SATA card...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top