Economics of SATA hard drive

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Why?

BECAUSE IT GIVE YOU MUCH MORE CHOICE WITH THE NEW SYSTEM, STUPID.

There's no reason

Wrong, as always.

and no performance gain over PATA.

Duh. Never ever said there was.

Its a neutral issue.

Wrong, as always.

No gain.

Wrong, as always.

The bandwidth of SATA isn't used by a hard drive.

No one ever said it was.

Its read/write capabilities are there to justify the high-speed SATA interface.

Wrong, as always.

Its all marketing crap without real performance gains.

No one ever said there were any performance gains.

WHAT MATTERS IS THAT A NEW SYSTEM WILL HAVE
LOTS MORE SATA PORTS THAN IT WILL HAVE PATA PORTS.

You're stupid enough. But it doesn't matter since there's no advantage of SATA over
PATA.

Wrong, as always.

The stupid part is that you've fallen for all the marketing BS.

Wrong, as always.

No 'marketing bullshit in the FACT that new systems have a
lot more SATA PORTS THAN THEY HAVE PATA PORTS.

And since you cant manage any better than this utterly mindless
shit, here goes the chain on the rest of your pig ignorant shit.

 

[Merrill P. L. Worthington]

Wrong, as always.

No 'marketing bullshit in the FACT that new systems have a
lot more SATA PORTS THAN THEY HAVE PATA PORTS.

And since you cant manage any better than this utterly mindless
shit, here goes the chain on the rest of your pig ignorant shit.

ROTFLMAO!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

http://www20.tomshardware.com/2005/09/27/round/

You're so clueless!!!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Who cares if there's only one hard drive!?!! You can have a brazillian
SATA ports!! You onely need one PATA port!!

hahahahahahahaha

Jokes on you!!

 

[paulmd]

Question, as our IT support wants to put a SATA drive in my office PC by
using such an adaptor,
is there a performance penalty involved because the adaptor uses the PCI
bus? I want to point it out if there is before they use that option.

TIA!

If by adapter, they mean Controllor card that plugs into the PCI bus.
No problem.

If instead they mean something that plugs into the IDE plug and adapts
to SATA. Potential bad juju.

 

[kony]

Bet they didnt with a non boot drive.

Since any kind of testing would be of a synthetic bench or
real world app, not booting or running the OS, it would not
matter if the boot drive or not.

Bet it still wouldnt even be detectable with a proper double blind
trial without being able to use a benchmark with a non boot drive.

The difference is there. Some may perceive it and others
may not, but some won't perceive the difference between the
CPU they paid for and the next cheaper one so does that
really validate perceptions?

No it does not.

A system is comprised of many subsystems. Each taken alone
may fall within a threshold of inperception but additively
each minor change will result in a system performance
increase large enough to notice by practically anyone.

In short, paying more to use a SATA card when it ends up
SLOWER is madness.

 

[Daniel James]

AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE DVD BURNER.

SATA DVD-writers are available from several makers, certainly from Plextor,
Samsung, and MSI. They seem to be typically around 75% more expensive than
the equivalent PATA device; but that will change, I'm sure. In a
hypothetical future system with only one PATA connection the DVD is likely
to be SATA, so that PATA connection will be free.

Nobody is claiming that SATA doesn't have a slight technical advantage, but
there is a price penalty for adopting SATA today, and no persuasive
argument to prefer it. If I were building a new system (with a motherboards
that supported it) I'd fit a SATA drive (and damn the expense), but for
upgrading an old system with no SATA interface I wouldn't think twice about
buying PATA -- I'd just do it. The chances are that that drive will have
died, or its size will seem to laughably small that there's no point in
reusing it, before PATA interfaces become so rare as to be a problem.

Cheers,
Daniel.

 

[kony]

Nope, there's plenty of SATA PCIe cards around. Just no IDE ones.

There are a few, but "plenty"? I don't think so. Having a
select few cards for a given function is hardly a market
saturation. I am confident there will be multiple times as
many PCI Express cards available in the next few years.

Yes there is. The market is trying to tell you something.

The market tries to make $ in individual cases, there will
be cards. Wait and see.

Which clearly shows you what market the PATA drives are directed at.

They're directed at systems exactly like the one the OP has.
I'm still in disbelief that this thread even exists, that
people are trying to make such a simple thing as buying the
drive type supported by the system, an order of magnitude
more difficult in the end.

Nope, that is not what sufficient means.

yes it is EXACTLY what sufficient means, everyone does not
have the same criteria. What is fast enough for one user
may not be for another, or another use/same user.

In the burst rate. Not in the sustained transfer rate of a single drive.

Actually I've benched drives on KT2666/333 chipsets for
sustained rate too. Same drive is noticably slower on a PCI
IDE card (in this case it was a Promise FastTrack100).

This was a while back but vaguely it was a Maxtor Plus 8 or
9 and the figures were something like 35 MB/s on the PCI
card and 52MB/s on the motherboard's southbridge integral
controller. This was before even trying to do anything else
significant on the PCI bus like network transfers or audio,
with the latter known to be effected as well.

 

[Peter van der Goes]

Yes, but his is an older system where you wont notice anything.


Depending on what is put on the drive, you may not notice
anything much, speed wise. You need to be using the drive
pretty aggressively to see any effect of the PCI bus.

Thanks, Rod.

 

[chrisv]

No thanks, I'm not stupid enough to flout the ATA standard.

You dont need to with SATA.

You ignore his point that cables are quite manageable. Period. Even
with flat PATA cables.

 

[chrisv]

"Oscar Jones" (Ron Speed) wrote in message

OK -- belligerent 2. Bye. Filtering ...

Ron^Hd always respondes to a plonking with a nym-shifted response. No
need to kill the one-time-use name.

 

[Merrill P. L. Worthington]

Rod Speed wrote:




You ignore his point that cables are quite manageable. Period. Even
with flat PATA cables.

He has ignored most logical statements. He obviously doesn't know what
he's talking about.

But the problem is that he's leading other into BAD buying decisions.

 

[Merrill P. L. Worthington]

Ed Light wrote:




Ron^Hd always respondes to a plonking with a nym-shifted response. No
need to kill the one-time-use name.

Rug Spud doesn't have any more to say. His statements contradict
published objective testing results using real-world systems. He even
contradicts hiimself.

He's lost this round and proven he doesn't have any clue about hard
drive performance. He's probably just some 14-year-old kid.

If anybody is listening to him, they place themselves in the same category.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hmm I'd like to filter out belligerents. Guess I'll start with Rod.

You are definetely in the wrong post, this time.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Your last sentence.


Your last sentence. Pure pig ignorant drivel.

66mhz, 150mB/sec, "run at that reduced bandwidth". Geez, talk about clueless.

Irrelevant to your last sentence which is pure pig ignorant drivel.

Very likely.

Nope. (Nor 66MHz.) 33MHz, is 66MB/s is Ultra-66 ie UDMA-4.

Presumably you mean slower.
Nah.


Yes, but the hard drive isnt limited by the speed of the
DVD and thats completely trivial to prove using HDTach.



Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Pity the hard drive doesnt run at 66Mhz.

Yes it does (run at 66MHz) actually, (on the assumption that it is Ultra133, not Ultra100).
That's one thing he got right, although completely unintentional, of course.

And you previously pig ignorantly claimed that the hard
drive would probably run at REDUCED BANDWIDTH anyway.

You're the one playing with your dick and fooling absolutely no one at all.

With the exception of one Ed Light, apparently.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

... snip much trollish drivel ...

Please don't even respond to Trolls.

So then why did you do the exact opposite just now.

It just encourages them.

Yes, and Merrill thanks you for that.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Ron^Hd always respondes to a plonking with a nym-shifted response.

No, he doesn't 'always'.

No need to kill the one-time-use name.

And Oscar is not a 'one-time-use' name.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Since any kind of testing would be of a synthetic bench or real world
app, not booting or running the OS, it would not matter if the boot
drive or not.


The difference is there. Some may perceive it and others may not,
but some won't perceive the difference between the CPU they paid
for and the next cheaper one so does that really validate perceptions?

No it does not.

A system is comprised of many subsystems. Each taken alone
may fall within a threshold of inperception but additively
each minor change will result in a system performance
increase large enough to notice by practically anyone.

In short, paying more to use a SATA card
when it ends up SLOWER is madness.

There is no slower with one HD on it. Stop harping that point.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

There are a few, but "plenty"?

As in every major chip manufacturer has one. I don't count the rebrands.
There may not be many rebrands in the professional market that PCIe is.
There never were with PCI-X either.

I don't think so.
Having a select few cards for a given function is hardly a market saturation.

Never was with PCI-X either.

I am confident there will be multiple times as many
PCI Express cards available in the next few years.


The market tries to make $ in individual cases, there will
be cards. Wait and see.

Right. So there is no market in PCIe cards for them.

I'm still in disbelief that this thread even exists, that people are
trying to make such a simple thing as buying the drive type support-
ed by the system, an order of magnitude more difficult in the end.

Then watch it from the sideline.

yes it is EXACTLY what sufficient means,

Nope, 75MB/s burstrate suffices (is sufficient) for a drive
with an STR below that to run without reduced performance.

everyone does not have the same criteria.

It's context sensitive, yes, but here the context is clear.

What is fast enough for one user may not
be for another, or another use/same user.

Not a problem here.

Actually I've benched drives on KT2666/333 chipsets for
sustained rate too. Same drive is noticably slower on a PCI
IDE card (in this case it was a Promise FastTrack100).

This was a while back but vaguely it was a Maxtor Plus 8 or
9 and the figures were something like 35 MB/s on the PCI
card and 52MB/s on the motherboard's southbridge integral
controller. This was before even trying to do anything else
significant on the PCI bus like network transfers or audio,
with the latter known to be effected as well.

Burstrate is the maximum obtainable STR between the drive and the
host interface, so your observations clash with the report you showed.

I have to therefor conclude that you just made that up.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I assumed you could find something similar.

Guess not.

Maybe I should have found a link to the manufacturer.

Or you could buy a ticket and go over there and become his
personal secretary, hold his hand and nurse him until death.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

SATA DVD-writers are available from several makers, certainly from Plextor,
Samsung, and MSI. They seem to be typically around 75% more expensive than
the equivalent PATA device; but that will change, I'm sure.

In a hypothetical future system with only one PATA connection the DVD
is likely to be SATA, so that PATA connection will be free.

In the same hypothetical future system with the DVD likely to be SATA
the PATA connection will be gone.

Nobody is claiming that SATA doesn't have a slight technical advantage,

Merrill P. Troll does.

but there is a price penalty for adopting SATA today, and no persuasive
argument to prefer it. If I were building a new system (with a motherboards
that supported it) I'd fit a SATA drive (and damn the expense), but for
upgrading an old system with no SATA interface I wouldn't think twice about
buying PATA -- I'd just do it. The chances are that that drive will have died,

or its size will seem to laughably small

Only if you bought it too small to begin with.

 

[kony]

There is no slower with one HD on it. Stop harping that point.

It is in fact slower. Were you paying attention to the
details provided in the thread?

Simple scenario:

System 1
KT266A motherboard
PCI SATA controller card
Typical budget grade HDD, 160GB Seagate SATA

System 2
KT266A motherboard (both systems same beyond drive and PCI
card)
Southbridge integral PATA
Typical budget grade HDD, 160GB Seagate PATA

System 2 will bench faster, more than a single digit %
difference if the disk subsystem is a significant bottleneck
in whatever-the-test.