Real-world comparisons between SATA 150 and SATA 300

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odie Ferrous
  • Start date Start date
O

Odie Ferrous

Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
speed between the two?

Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?


Odie
 
Odie Ferrous said:
Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
speed between the two?
Click to expand...


Rephrase your question. I suspect you realize how naive it is on the
surface. Are you just trolling? Obviously the answer is that SATA 150
bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much to
do with the speed of a HD itself.
Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
Click to expand...


There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted. You'll
find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when connected
to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads.
 
Ron said:
Rephrase your question.
Click to expand...

I think a twelve-year-old would understand my question without resorting
to facetious comments.

I suspect you realize how naive it is on the
surface. Are you just trolling? Obviously the answer is that SATA 150
bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much to
do with the speed of a HD itself.


There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted. You'll
find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when connected
to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads.
Click to expand...


I think most people would have understood I meant the SATA 150 drive
being on a SATA 150 controller, and the SATA 300 being on a SATA 300
controller.

I suppose I have to apologise for your lack of intuition?

You clearly have no "real world" experience of this particular subject,
so please don't bother commenting.


Odie
 
Odie Ferrous said:
I think a twelve-year-old would understand my question without resorting
to facetious comments.




I think most people would have understood I meant the SATA 150 drive
being on a SATA 150 controller, and the SATA 300 being on a SATA 300
controller.
Click to expand...


It is precisely clear that is what you meant and also precisely is what
demonstrated your naivety, Either a SATA150 or SATA300 HD will give rather
close to the same performance whether connected to an SATA150 or SATA300
controller in single user workstation usage. SATA150 vs SATA300 isn't
relevant. Particular HD models are relevant.
I suppose I have to apologise for your lack of intuition?

You clearly have no "real world" experience of this particular subject,
so please don't bother commenting.
Click to expand...

Obviously the opposite is true. Check out some benchmarks.
 
Either a SATA150 or SATA300 HD will give rather close to the same
performance whether connected to an SATA150 or SATA300
controller in single user workstation usage. SATA150 vs SATA300 isn't
relevant. Particular HD models are relevant.
Click to expand...


Why not just say this in the first place? Simple (that figures),
succinct and to the point.

Grief - talk about walking around in circles.

Besides, from your behaviour I wouldn't believe you if you told me the
earth was approximately round.

I'm hardly likely to have much faith in your ability to differentiate
between SATA I and II.

Thanks anyway - it must have been an effort for you.


Odie
 
Ron Reaugh said:
"Odie Ferrous" (e-mail address removed)> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Click to expand...

But wouldn't 'know' you as we know you, Duncan.
What you know and what you don't know.
Why that business signature is in the bottom of your post, for instance.

You know he does.
It is precisely clear that is what you meant and also precisely is what
demonstrated your naivety,
Click to expand...

So what is it, he's trolling or he's naive.
Either a SATA150 or SATA300 HD will give rather close to the same
performance whether connected to an SATA150 or SATA300 controller
in single user workstation usage.
Click to expand...

Currently.
And it doesn't make a bloody difference whether it is single user workstation
or server usage. That is decided by other SATA-2 features.
SATA150 vs SATA300 isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

It should be.
Particular HD models are relevant.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be. Not yet.

You mean indecision, don't you?

One doesn't need to. It's no different to IDE and SCSI, even when
SATA is a point to point interface and IDE and SCSI are not.
No current drive can exhaust 100MB/s useable bandwidth.
 
Odie said:
Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
speed between the two?

Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
Click to expand...

It requires tools more sensitive than that. The _only_ thing that an SATA
II drive on an SATA II controller can do _faster_ than an SATA I drive is
move data from the buffer to memory. It is no doubt possible to contrive a
usage pattern in which this makes an SATA II drive appear to be much faster
than an SATA I drive, but in the real world performance is limited by the
number of bits on a track and the amount of time it takes to move a track
past the head, and that limit is far less than the data transfer rate of
SATA I.

The command queuing can be beneficial in machines that are doing heavy
multitasking--in the real world that lets out most single-user systems--but
even there the difference is second-order.

The major "benefit" of SATA II is that SATA II advocates can now claim that
it is "almost as fast as SCSI".
 
Eric said:
Jeez, you are stupid. How noticable was the jump from UDMA-100 to 133?
Click to expand...

Stupid, for asking questions?

Gisin, if you have period pains, you can get medication to relieve the
symptoms.

I thought there would exist a modicum of professional expertise on the
group - but obviously not.


Odie
 
Odie Ferrous said:
Stupid, for asking questions?

Gisin, if you have period pains, you can get medication to relieve the
symptoms.

I thought there would exist a modicum of professional expertise on the
group - but obviously not.
Click to expand...
The professionals are fed up with clueless newbies who ask stupid questions.

The "faster interface" issue comes up every month.
How many years have you been trolling without learning anything?
 
J. Clarke said:
It requires tools more sensitive than that. The _only_ thing that an SATA
II drive on an SATA II controller can do _faster_ than an SATA I drive is
move data from the buffer to memory.
Click to expand...

Not if that Serial ATA II drive has a standard 1.5Gb/s interface.
Note that he subtitle to Serial ATA II is "Extensions to Serial ATA 1.0"
It is no doubt possible to contrive a
usage pattern in which this makes an SATA II drive appear to be much faster
than an SATA I drive,
Click to expand...

Provided that it incorporates *that* particular new 'extension' of Serial ATA II,
the new higher interface speed.
but in the real world performance is limited by the
number of bits on a track and the amount of time it takes to move a track
past the head, and that limit is far less than the data transfer rate of SATA I.
Click to expand...

And you really think Duncan didn't know that?
The command queuing can be beneficial in machines that are doing heavy
multitasking--in the real world that lets out most single-user systems--but
even there the difference is second-order.

The major "benefit" of SATA II is that SATA II advocates can now claim that
it is "almost as fast as SCSI".
Click to expand...

Oh? How is that?
 
How many years have you been trolling without learning anything?
Click to expand...

NO, Google groups shows that you've been so doing much longer than odious
odoriferous HD butcher.
 
Back
Top