SATA vs. UATA

[Kabob]

I'm still new to the different types of hard drives, and I've realized that many HD's are SATA and many are UATA. I thought that SATA was somehow faster. Can someone please explain the difference to me?

-Kabob

 

[epsilon9090]

unless you get a drive above 7200 rpm, sata offers no advantage. its primary use is that it lest the regular ide slots stay open for optical drives, giving them their own ide channels, which greatly increases performance there. sata is good.

 

[Kabob]

so wait, UATA uses an IDE slot? Is SATA any faster than UATA in general? And what the heck is an IDE channel?

-Kabob

 

[Sureshot324]

Will optical drives ever move to SATA?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: epsilon9090
unless you get a drive above 7200 rpm, sata offers no advantage. its primary use is that it lest the regular ide slots stay open for optical drives, giving them their own ide channels, which greatly increases performance there. sata is good.

there's also the advantage of slimmer and less cluttered cables but that's not that huge unless you desprately need the air flow

 

[Mem]

Will optical drives ever move to SATA?

There are SATA CD/DVD drives available.

Link.

 

[NightCrawler]

Sata are nice thin cables instead of those fat crappy ribbon cables. Performance isn't much difference because the hard drives are the limiting factor.

Sata 300 will bring some nice new features though like NCQ and Hot Swapping.

 

[blakeatwork]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Sata are nice thin cables instead of those fat crappy ribbon cables. Performance isn't much difference because the hard drives are the limiting factor.

Sata 300 will bring some nice new features though like NCQ and Hot Swapping.

NCQ is already available on some late model drives.. (WD Raptor GD740 for example), though hotswapping in desktop PC's makes me leery... though it will probably end up increasing my service call revenue...

 

[Kabob]

So, at the moment at least, UATA should run close to the speed of SATA, correct? I need to get a new HD sometime, and I see that UATA tends to be alot cheaper than SATA, so I was wondering.

-Kabob

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: kabob983
So, at the moment at least, UATA should run close to the speed of SATA, correct? I need to get a new HD sometime, and I see that UATA tends to be alot cheaper than SATA, so I was wondering.

-Kabob

You will NOT find a speed difference. In the end its the drive that is much slower. Drives can't even break UATA100, and most don't top ATA66 anyways....
go for wahtever is cheaper, unless thin cable is bliss 2 u


and optical drives that are SATA are literally useless...no drive even comes near ATA33....

 

[EGGO]

I wish I knew how to properly fold SATA cables, since they can't go 90 degrees, and I'm assuming even more at an acute angle.

 

[SUOrangeman]

To reiterate a subtle point, SATA involves a data connector that is physically different than the IDE/PATA ribbon cables we've come to know over several years. SATA also introduces a different power connector, but some SATA devices still include the older Molex power connector.

As far as angling SATA data cables at 90 degrees, let it be known that there are cables that have 90-degree connectors.

-SUO

 

[dnuggett]

and optical drives that are SATA are literally useless...no drive even comes near ATA33....

Not so. The main reason for SATA w/ optical drives is that they have their own dedicated channel, not chained together. This can greatly increase performance depending on usage and current setup.

 

[thorin]

There are already SATA optical drives available however they are few and far between because the interface provides no benefits to the devices.

A 52x drive can't even saturate a ATA33 channel let alone a ATA66/ATA100/ATA133/SATA150 channel.

52 x 150KB/sec = 7.8MB/sec
72 x 150KB/Sec = 10.8MB/Sec

You'd need a 220x CDROM drive to saturate a ATA33 channel

Even a 16x DVDROM doesn't do it 16 x ~1.3MB/Sec = ~21MB/Sec

You'd need a 25x DVDROM drive to saturate a ATA33 channel

Having a Optical drive on it's own channel does provide some benefit but most people manage this without needing to switch to SATA at all. With the # of connections current mobos come with, PCI controllers, and the size of HDs today you shouldn't need your Optical drives to share a channel (PATA) with any of your source drives.

Thorin

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

and optical drives that are SATA are literally useless...no drive even comes near ATA33....

Not so. The main reason for SATA w/ optical drives is that they have their own dedicated channel, not chained together. This can greatly increase performance depending on usage and current setup.

I don't think existing as master/slaves really hurts performance much or at all in optical drives.

I still really want SATA optical drives (and more connectors standard on the motherboard; 4-6 of them instead of 2-4 usually) because the cables are so much thinner and it greatly reduces clutter in the case/improves airflow.

Even rounded ATA cables are cumbersome.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: dnuggett

and optical drives that are SATA are literally useless...no drive even comes near ATA33....

Not so. The main reason for SATA w/ optical drives is that they have their own dedicated channel, not chained together. This can greatly increase performance depending on usage and current setup.

I don't think existing as master/slaves really hurts performance much or at all in optical drives.

I still really want SATA optical drives (and more connectors standard on the motherboard; 4-6 of them instead of 2-4 usually) because the cables are so much thinner and it greatly reduces clutter in the case/improves airflow.

Even rounded ATA cables are cumbersome.

Sure it does. Try copying on the fly with two drives on the same channel.

 

[connect]

PATA vs SATA vs UATA drives; what differances?

 

[thorin]

UATA doesn't exist (at least not in this context). The two interfaces are actually PATA (Parallel ATA) and SATA (Serial ATA). The OP has incorrectly been calling PATA, UATA.

Thorin