SCSI u160 vs Ultra ATA100

[MrPG]

I'm in the process of building a new machine, not sure if I should go with scsi u160 drives or ATA100. From the specs on the drives themselves there doesn't seem to be a guarenteed boost in performance if I go with one or the other. From datasheets on both types of drives the differences seem minor, no real improvement of one over the other.... Am I correct in believing this... or is there a big difference between the two interms of performance.



😕

 

[Dunbar]

The advantage you'll get from SCSI is from the higher spindle speed and lower seek times of the good drives, it does make a noticeable difference. As far as U160 and ATA100 the transfer rates aren't really signifigant to a home user.

 

[Pabster]

There's absolutely no comparison (performance wise, and, IMHO, across the board) between U160 SCSI and ATA/100. SCSI is a superior bus architecture and the drives are superior in every way to IDE. The only advantage to going with ATA/100 is that the drives are cheaper for a larger amount of storage; the caveat - the drives are much slower, the bus limited, etc. It would all depend on what you'll be using your machine for. The more multitasking you plan on doing, the more you should look to U160 SCSI.

 

[astroview]

There is a huge difference in 15,000 RPM SCSI drives and 7,200 RPM IDE ones other than simple speed. SCSI has lower latency, meaning it accesses data quicker. Also, SCSI drives are built to last longer and fail less than IDE on average. If you have the money SCSI will be a nice add-on, but for a regular user IDE is fine.

SCSI is a lot more expensive too.

 

[CocaCola5]

Putting the OS on a SCSI 10,000rpm would gain the most because of the low access time, but ATA100 is fine for storage, everything else.

 

[bacillus]

don't forget you'll have to get a scsi card to go with the scsi hdd!