USB 2.0 or IDE WHICH IS FASTER?

[NoToRiOuS1]

i have three IDE HD in my comp...it is a damn MESS...i am thinking of getting one or two enclosures...and having just one IDE HD and/or selling 2 HD to get one SATA HD.

anyways, my question to you guys is:
which is faster? USB 2.0/Firewire or IDE
i know usb2 is 480mbps firewire is 400mbps
and i believe IDE is 150mbps?
if thats correct then USB2 should not bottleneck the drive bandwidtch, is that correct?

 

[LTC8K6]

IDE is way faster than USB2.0. No contest.

USB2.0 will be a huge drive bottleneck.

SATA is not really much faster than IDE yet.

 

[mechBgon]

1 byte = 8 bits. ATA/133 would be 133MB/sec (theoretical) x 8 bits per byte = 1064Mbit/sec.

 

[NoToRiOuS1]

any suggestions then? what can i do about the 3 HDs in the compy. i have a maxtor 60gb, wd 80gb, maxtor 160gb. all 7200rpm, all 8mb buffer. i need something for storage(something big) and something for OS and games(fast drive) think i should opt for a raptor and keep the maxtor 60gb or any such combos?

 

[mechBgon]

1) you could just not let it bother you

 

[NoToRiOuS1]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
1) you could just not let it bother you

aright i lied. i just wanted to make the post a quickie thats why.
the reason it bothers me is because i have a 120mm case fan in the front and have all the IDE cables and power cables SEVERELY restricts the airlow to the vid card(9800 pro) which i have tried to OC and get horrible results doing so. i can barely OC at all. in my older case(which broke) i had it running at XT speeds...that might also be partly due to the fact that i never put the side panel on it and had a big ass fan running to cool everything down.
so now you see my reason for being annoyed w/ the three HDs.

 

[mechBgon]

How about watch for a Hot Deal on a single 300GB drive over in the Hot Deals forum? That would cut down on power draw, heat production, noise and airflow restrictions.

 

[NoToRiOuS1]

if partinioned...will the 300 gigger offer WD raptor like performance in terms of bandwidtch due to its high density platters? i know this is a bit off topic from this thread's original question...but thanks for the help.

 

[mechBgon]

You might hit the Storage tab at the top of the Forums and check out the AnandTech Raptor reviews, which included (gasp) game-loading times. How daring, a real-world test we can actually relate to

Bigger picture: a non-OC'ed 6600GT would probably spank the pants off your 9800@XT in most scenarios. Don't sink major amounts of $$$ into new drives to squeak another 15% out of your card.

 

[NoToRiOuS1]

thank you mechBgon for all your help. its thoroughly appreciated
one venue that i didn't consider was just getting a better cooler for the 9800 pro which would cost significantly less than any of the previous ideas. (i am trying not to upgrate the MB, proc and vid card for at least a year or two...after rebate HDs are a diff story)
thanks for all your help!!!

 

[magomago]

Well just b/c just 2.0 is 480mbps doesn't mean it is faster than firewire. It is a controllerless host~ Firewire will maintain that consisten 400mbps, whereas usb2.0 jumps up and down like crazy and uses cpu cycles

 

[NoToRiOuS1]

so the firewire will provide a steady stream @ 400mbps? if so then have a 160gb in an enclosure w/ firewire would be a pretty good choice. ty magomago....i didn't know that...i guess you learn something new everyday...specially when you are on AT forums

 

[LTC8K6]

If it's just to store stuff, a USB2.0 external hard drive will be fine for you.

I have a new 40GB 5400rpm WD drive pulled out of a new Systemax system. I decided to put it in a USB2.0 enclosure and use it that way, since it's a lot slower than a 7200rpm drive.

HDtach results for the drive on a USB2 port:
BURST 23MB/sec
MAX 19MB/sec
MIN 15MB/sec
AVG 17MB/sec
18ms random access time

 

[Cerb]

ATA > FW > USB
However, if you're not doing large transfers, USB should be fast enough, and FW will definitely be.

However, from the sound of it, it might be better to get a couple 5.25"->3.5" rails and stick them in the top.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: Cerb
ATA > FW > USB
However, if you're not doing large transfers, USB should be fast enough, and FW will definitely be.

However, from the sound of it, it might be better to get a couple 5.25"->3.5" rails and stick them in the top.

Exactly what I was going to say - this would be a lot cheaper, and probably quite effective.

 

[LED]

Firewire800

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
IDE is way faster than USB2.0. No contest.

USB2.0 will be a huge drive bottleneck.

SATA is not really much faster than IDE yet.

SATA and IDE are not hard drives. They are bandwidth. SATA _is_ faster than IDE.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
IDE is way faster than USB2.0. No contest.

USB2.0 will be a huge drive bottleneck.

SATA is not really much faster than IDE yet.

SATA and IDE are not hard drives. They are interfaces. SATA, as an interface only, _is_ faster than IDE.

Fixed.

 

[NoToRiOuS1]

yea i will have to look into the 5.25' --> 3.5' rails. that sounds like a good plan. thanks everyone!!

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Dopefiend

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
IDE is way faster than USB2.0. No contest.

USB2.0 will be a huge drive bottleneck.

SATA is not really much faster than IDE yet.

SATA and IDE are not hard drives. They are interfaces. SATA, as an interface only, _is_ faster than IDE.

Fixed.

One can call then either bandwidth or interface. I would say it is a fix to call it interface, but seeing how thay can ONLY be bandwidth/interface, then saying "as an interface only" is moot.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Dopefiend

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
IDE is way faster than USB2.0. No contest.

USB2.0 will be a huge drive bottleneck.

SATA is not really much faster than IDE yet.

SATA and IDE are not hard drives. They are interfaces. SATA, as an interface only, _is_ faster than IDE.

Fixed.

One can call then either bandwidth or interface. I would say it is a fix to call it interface, but seeing how thay can ONLY be bandwidth/interface, then saying "as an interface only" is moot.

Well, it is an interface, with a max theoretical bandwidth of 150 MB/Sec, which no drive will even come close to, hence making it no faster than P-ATA133 in the real world.
I'm guessing that's what Dopefiend was trying to point out.

 

[LTC8K6]

SATA and IDE are not hard drives

Since no one said they were, I'm missing your point.

SATA is still not much faster than IDE, hard drive or interface.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: aeternitas
SATA and IDE are not hard drives. They are interfaces. SATA, as an interface only, _is_ faster than IDE.

Fixed.

One can call then either bandwidth or interface. I would say it is a fix to call it interface, but seeing how thay can ONLY be bandwidth/interface, then saying "as an interface only" is moot.[/quote]

Well, it is an interface, with a max theoretical bandwidth of 150 MB/Sec, which no drive will even come close to, hence making it no faster than P-ATA133 in the real world.
I'm guessing that's what Dopefiend was trying to point out.[/quote]

Every heard of RAID0? Burst speed? Plunty of setups have gotten over the theoretical limit of ATA 133 on SATA1 therefore the interface is faster. What is plugged into the interface is irrelevent. He was right on correcting the word used for it (interface is much better thank you) but not on the other point.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: aeternitas
SATA and IDE are not hard drives. They are interfaces. SATA, as an interface only, _is_ faster than IDE.

Fixed.

One can call then either bandwidth or interface. I would say it is a fix to call it interface, but seeing how thay can ONLY be bandwidth/interface, then saying "as an interface only" is moot.

Well, it is an interface, with a max theoretical bandwidth of 150 MB/Sec, which no drive will even come close to, hence making it no faster than P-ATA133 in the real world.
I'm guessing that's what Dopefiend was trying to point out.[/quote]

Every heard of RAID0? Burst speed? Plunty of setups have gotten over the theoretical limit of ATA 133 on SATA1 therefore the interface is faster. What is plugged into the interface is irrelevent. He was right on correcting the word used for it (interface is much better thank you) but not on the other point.[/quote]

I am very well aware of RAID setups thank you, I administer some 50 servers with varying RAID levels.
But RAID was not what the OP asked about as far as I can tell, and burst speeds are pretty much irrelevant in this case, realistically you're not going to sustain much more than 40-50 MB/Sec, and that's under pretty ideal circumstances.

 

[LTC8K6]

Example:

USB2.0 480mbits/sec
FW400 400mbits/sec

The USB interface is 20% faster, right?

Nope. Not even close. In reality, the Firewire interface will embarrass the USB 2.0 interface.