R
Richard K Rabbat
Hello,
Will the Asus A8V Deluxe support SATA II?
TY
Will the Asus A8V Deluxe support SATA II?
TY
B
Ben Pope
Richard said:
There is no such thing as SATA II.
If you mean, will it support second generation with a maximum transfer speed of 3Gb/s, yes, since they are backwards compatible, like USB2
Ben
R
Richard K Rabbat
Hi Ben,
This is what I found on www.newegg.com web site.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822145088 , the
harddrive depicted here is a SATA II drive which means it transfers at twice
the speed of SATA I. I was if the A8V Deluxe supports SATAII.
This is what I found on www.newegg.com web site.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822145088 , the
harddrive depicted here is a SATA II drive which means it transfers at twice
the speed of SATA I. I was if the A8V Deluxe supports SATAII.
speed of 3Gb/s, yes, since they are backwards compatible, like USB2Ben Pope said:
B
Ben Pope
Richard said:
There is no such thing as a SATA II drive.
http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp
That drive will work quite happily on either the VIA or Promise SATA controllers, using 150Gb/s interface speed, this will not impede it's speed even slightly.
In that sense, SATA is like USB: You can use a USB1 or 2 device on a USB 1 or 2 controller. I.e., you can use a SATA 1.5Gb/s or 3Gb/s drive on a 1.5 or 3Gb/s interface.
Ben
V
Venom
What does it matter? He is going to buy a deathstar and they don`t last long
anyhow.
anyhow.
R
Richard K Rabbat
Nah, changed my mind about the Deathstar,
Today I bought 2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM Harddrives Baby...
Today I bought 2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM Harddrives Baby...
N
NoNoBadDog!
Today, I bought two Seagate 300GB NCQ drives that will absolutely *SMOKE*
your punt 10,000 RPM Raptors, *AND* I have over a half terabyte storage
compared to your puny 148GB.
Raptors are so yesterday....
Bobby
your punt 10,000 RPM Raptors, *AND* I have over a half terabyte storage
compared to your puny 148GB.
Raptors are so yesterday....
Bobby
R
Richard K Rabbat
Hey Bobby,
What board are you hooking those up too? Is the Seagate SATA with NCQ realy
that much faster than the Raptor drives?
Did flop? If so I will return them and get the Seagate's. Reason for
buying the Raptor is so I can run multiple boot OS's and have them load
quick, but you are saying the Seagate with do better! Please explain, I
guess i'm not up to par and also have never used Seagate. Are they good
drives with a good/great track record?
Will my new board support NCQ?
PS: My new system will have:
Asus A8V Deluxe
AMD Athlon 3500+ (venice core)
1 Gig of corsair TWINX1024-3200C2PT
Geforce 6800 GT AGP 256 MB DDR
Etc...
Richard
What board are you hooking those up too? Is the Seagate SATA with NCQ realy
that much faster than the Raptor drives?
Did flop? If so I will return them and get the Seagate's. Reason for
buying the Raptor is so I can run multiple boot OS's and have them load
quick, but you are saying the Seagate with do better! Please explain, I
guess i'm not up to par and also have never used Seagate. Are they good
drives with a good/great track record?
Will my new board support NCQ?
PS: My new system will have:
Asus A8V Deluxe
AMD Athlon 3500+ (venice core)
1 Gig of corsair TWINX1024-3200C2PT
Geforce 6800 GT AGP 256 MB DDR
Etc...
Richard
=----NoNoBadDog! said:
B
Ben Pope
Richard said:
No. It's much slower. But it's also much more expensive.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2396&p=6
I have a Raptor 36GB and it absolutely storms through everything. In terms of raw sustained transfer rate, you don't notice a difference, but the latency (seek) makes a huge
difference.
I wouldn't buy 2 Raptors, unless I didn't need much storage or had money to burn... I have a 36GB Raptor, and a 250GB drive for other stuff.
Can't comment, never had a Seagate.
I don't think so. I think you need an nForce4.
But NCQ won't gain you very much unless you have 100 users simultaneously hitting a large database on your system.
Ben
N
NoNoBadDog!
Your motherboard must support NCQ. The drives are the same cost as the
regular ATA drives. Yes, it is faster in general use. SATA is fast in
bursts, but does not offer significant improvement in sustained throughput.
SATA is good in situations where data integrity is paramount, but for speed
and ease of setup, NCQ is the way to go. Again, be aware that your
motherboard must support NCQ...you cannot add it a mobo that does not have
it.
I am running a preproduction board (from the manufacturer...I am in the
marketing industry) with an AMD Athlon64 4000+. I am bound by an NDA...but
there are boards already available that support NCQ.
Bobby
regular ATA drives. Yes, it is faster in general use. SATA is fast in
bursts, but does not offer significant improvement in sustained throughput.
SATA is good in situations where data integrity is paramount, but for speed
and ease of setup, NCQ is the way to go. Again, be aware that your
motherboard must support NCQ...you cannot add it a mobo that does not have
it.
I am running a preproduction board (from the manufacturer...I am in the
marketing industry) with an AMD Athlon64 4000+. I am bound by an NDA...but
there are boards already available that support NCQ.
Bobby
N
NoNoBadDog!
Two points....
Statistics can be used to support any viewpoint you choose. They should not
be used out of context.
Next, in burst mode...the speed in the cited example may have been faster,
but most users will not often require the burst mode. Sustained throughput
(gaming, video authoring/capture) is what is more important than burst
capability. And finally, the drives are the same price as the ATA
drives...but you do need a motherboard that supports NCQ.
Bobby
Statistics can be used to support any viewpoint you choose. They should not
be used out of context.
Next, in burst mode...the speed in the cited example may have been faster,
but most users will not often require the burst mode. Sustained throughput
(gaming, video authoring/capture) is what is more important than burst
capability. And finally, the drives are the same price as the ATA
drives...but you do need a motherboard that supports NCQ.
Bobby
B
Ben Pope
NoNoBadDog! said:
I'm not sure to what you refer.
You do not need a board that supports NCQ to plug on one of those drives, it will work fine without.
I never said that burst is important, I specifically talked about sustained speeds ands latency.
Ben
B
Ben Pope
NoNoBadDog! said:
What are you talking about? Both the Raptor and the Seagate in question are SATA. We're not talking about Parallel ATA at all.
Presumably because the commands as well as the data are protected by CRC?
NCQ is a feature of SATA, what has that to do with ease of setup?
Yes you can, the drive will work quite happily in non NCQ mode. Plus you could add a controller to the motherboard that supports NCQ.
You're in marketing eh? Well how come you don't understand the products then?
Yes, well done.
Anything using:
nVidia nForce4 Ultra:
http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20041015208345.html
nVidia nForce4 SLI (Intel and AMD versions):
http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20041015762843.html
nVidia nForce Professional:
http://www.nvidia.com/page/nfpro_workstation_features.html
Intel ICH6R/ICH6-M:
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/301473.htm
Intel ICH7R:
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/307013.htm
VIA VT8251:
(site down at the mo)
Any motherboard with:
Silicon Image 3132:
http://www.siimage.com/products/product.aspx?id=32
Promise:
SATAII150 TX2plus
SATAII150 TX4
FastTrak TX2200
FastTrak TX4200
.... (bored now)
Yes, huge secret who supports NCQ, careful not to let that one slip.
Ben
R
Richard K Rabbat
Hi Ben,
You said to NoNoBadDog!
LOL,
PS: thank you both, you have brought about (where Ben Clarified) knowledge I
wasn't aware of. Therefore I've been educated.
I will stick with the Raptor Drives that I purchased NIB at a good price. I
also have 2 WD 2500 se JBRTL For Raid storage. So that should bring me well
above one half a Terabyte. Damn that is alot of space..
Ben, What does the SE designation mean on the WD 2500JBRTL se
Agai Thank you Ben you are quite knowlegeable, Thank you NoNoBadDog! for
bringing it out of Ben.
Richard
You said to NoNoBadDog!
then?"
LOL,
PS: thank you both, you have brought about (where Ben Clarified) knowledge I
wasn't aware of. Therefore I've been educated.
I will stick with the Raptor Drives that I purchased NIB at a good price. I
also have 2 WD 2500 se JBRTL For Raid storage. So that should bring me well
above one half a Terabyte. Damn that is alot of space..
Ben, What does the SE designation mean on the WD 2500JBRTL se
Agai Thank you Ben you are quite knowlegeable, Thank you NoNoBadDog! for
bringing it out of Ben.
Richard
are SATA. We're not talking about Parallel ATA at all.Ben Pope said:
could add a controller to the motherboard that supports NCQ.
R
Rob
Hey Richard,Richard said:
As you know the Raptors are 10K RPM with 8MB data cache. The Caviar
drives are 7200RPM, the difference being the SE (yes, it means Special
Edition) drives all have an 8MB data cache on them as opposed to the
standard 2 MB on plain Caviar's. The Protege' line is the 5400RPM
drives with 2MB cache.
Rob
B
Ben Pope
Richard said:
I'm sure you'll make use of it!
Dunno. The 8MB cache answer sounds reasonable.
No worries... I like to understand things and make informed purchasing decisions, plus I like helping people out where I can.
Ben
N
NoNoBadDog!
NCQ enabled motherboards allow the data to be pulled from the drives in a
non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can be
faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit that
will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in the
long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.
Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that overall
NCQ beat the Raptor.
Bobby
non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can be
faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit that
will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in the
long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.
Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that overall
NCQ beat the Raptor.
Bobby
M
Mark A
Memory beats disk access all the time, and as memory gets cheaper, moreNoNoBadDog! said:
stuff is cached in memory, making synchronous disk access speed less
important. About the only time you see disk speed making a big difference is
when a program is first loaded, which doesn't take very long in most cases.
N
NoNoBadDog!
The fault in your logic comes in assuming that what you are looking for is
going to be in memory. When accessing data that is randomly placed on the
disks in a harddrive, NCQ can access that data faster and transfer it to
memory (or the FSB). Getting the data faster from the disk is what makes
NCQ faster. Your reply talks about where the data is *AFTER* it is read
from the disc. Memory is faster, but the information has to be read from
the disc first...and NCQ is faster.
You seem to imply that as memory gets cheaper, data will just magically
appear there and not have to be read from the disc. I assure you that even
if memory were free, the data that is placed in memory must come from the
hard drive. Your logic does not hold up. Hard drives have always been
slower than memory, which is why platter speed, cache, access and seek
times, latency, spin up and spin down, areal density and other factors have
been manipulated to increase data access and throughput.
Bobby
going to be in memory. When accessing data that is randomly placed on the
disks in a harddrive, NCQ can access that data faster and transfer it to
memory (or the FSB). Getting the data faster from the disk is what makes
NCQ faster. Your reply talks about where the data is *AFTER* it is read
from the disc. Memory is faster, but the information has to be read from
the disc first...and NCQ is faster.
You seem to imply that as memory gets cheaper, data will just magically
appear there and not have to be read from the disc. I assure you that even
if memory were free, the data that is placed in memory must come from the
hard drive. Your logic does not hold up. Hard drives have always been
slower than memory, which is why platter speed, cache, access and seek
times, latency, spin up and spin down, areal density and other factors have
been manipulated to increase data access and throughput.
Bobby
R
Rob
NoNoBadDog! said:
I'd tend to agree with the RAM argument. Super-fast disks come into
their own on server apps and throwing huge video files around, but for
most other uses anything above 7200 SATAs represents a large diminishing
return. Speaking as a user of a Mac Mini (4200, 1Gb RAM) and a PC (7200
SATA, 1Gb RAM).
Rob