T
Tomaz Koritnik
Hi
I just bought computer with Gigabyte 7N400 PRO2 (nForce2 and SATA)
motherboard, Athlon XP2400+ and 80GB SATA 7200rpm Seagate Baracuda disk. I
also have one older 80GB Maxtor 7200rpm ATA100 disk. The problem is when I
test disk performance of both disks. I made program that writes and reads
to/from 200MB file but I also tested copying files with windows explorer.
SATA disk can write approx 35-40MB/s and read 17MB/s, while ATA100 does
40MB/s read, 21MB/s write. In all tests ATA 100 is little faster than SATA.
I can even see the progress bar going faster when reading/writing from/to
ATA 100 drive. Isn't this odd that ATA 100 is faster? Shouldn't SATA be much
faster than that? I use Windows XP with SP1 and I don't have fragmanted
disk. Shouldn't SATA write with 80MB/s or it's just my imagination?
regards
Tomaz
I just bought computer with Gigabyte 7N400 PRO2 (nForce2 and SATA)
motherboard, Athlon XP2400+ and 80GB SATA 7200rpm Seagate Baracuda disk. I
also have one older 80GB Maxtor 7200rpm ATA100 disk. The problem is when I
test disk performance of both disks. I made program that writes and reads
to/from 200MB file but I also tested copying files with windows explorer.
SATA disk can write approx 35-40MB/s and read 17MB/s, while ATA100 does
40MB/s read, 21MB/s write. In all tests ATA 100 is little faster than SATA.
I can even see the progress bar going faster when reading/writing from/to
ATA 100 drive. Isn't this odd that ATA 100 is faster? Shouldn't SATA be much
faster than that? I use Windows XP with SP1 and I don't have fragmanted
disk. Shouldn't SATA write with 80MB/s or it's just my imagination?
regards
Tomaz