SATA v. IDE

  • Thread starter Thread starter taragem72
  • Start date Start date
T

taragem72

I'm doing an upgrade (K8 Triton GA-K8NS, AMD 64 3000+, 2 gig Kingston
dual-channel, ATI 9800 Pro, dual monitors) and picked up a 60g Maxtor
SATA drive ($40 -- couldn't resist the price) to go along with the 80g
WD IDE HD from the old system. Was planning to use the Maxtor as the
main as I thought SATA was faster than IDE. However, the builder dude
said the Maxtor wasn't any faster (both are 7200 rpm) and I should keep
the WD as the main HD. He also said since the MB has two SATA
connectors and only one SATA drive, everytime the system boots I'll
have to hit a key when "only one SATA drive present," or something
similar, came up.

Was he right about the HDs?

SG
 
I'm doing an upgrade (K8 Triton GA-K8NS, AMD 64 3000+, 2 gig Kingston
dual-channel, ATI 9800 Pro, dual monitors) and picked up a 60g Maxtor
SATA drive ($40 -- couldn't resist the price) to go along with the 80g
WD IDE HD from the old system. Was planning to use the Maxtor as the
main as I thought SATA was faster than IDE. However, the builder dude
said the Maxtor wasn't any faster (both are 7200 rpm) and I should keep
the WD as the main HD. He also said since the MB has two SATA
connectors and only one SATA drive, everytime the system boots I'll
have to hit a key when "only one SATA drive present," or something
similar, came up.

Was he right about the HDs?
Click to expand...

Among drives of the same generation, there is in general no perceptible
performance difference between SATA and PATA. In particulared cases there
may be differences in tuning (for example one manufacturer at one time sold
their PATA drives with the seek pattern set for low noise and the SATA
drives for best performance) that result in slight performance differences.
No drive on the market today can move bits past the heads fast enough for
ATA-100 to be a bottleneck.

If the Maxtor is a newer generation drive than the WD it may be faster due
to higher storage density (more bits per track means more bits moved past
the head on each revolution).

As far as having to hit a key when the system boots, that would be an issue
with configuration of the motherboard, and if anybody sold me a motherboard
that did that every time with no way to turn it off, I'd want my money
back.
 
I'm doing an upgrade (K8 Triton GA-K8NS, AMD 64 3000+, 2 gig Kingston
dual-channel, ATI 9800 Pro, dual monitors) and picked up a 60g Maxtor
SATA drive ($40 -- couldn't resist the price) to go along with the 80g
WD IDE HD from the old system. Was planning to use the Maxtor as the
main as I thought SATA was faster than IDE. However, the builder dude
said the Maxtor wasn't any faster (both are 7200 rpm) and I should
keep the WD as the main HD. He also said since the MB has two SATA
connectors and only one SATA drive, everytime the system boots I'll
have to hit a key when "only one SATA drive present," or something
similar, came up.
Click to expand...
Was he right about the HDs?
Click to expand...

Probably, but without the actual drive model numbers, its hard to
say. The SATA may be a more recent design and perform better.

SATA isnt intrinsically fast than IDE, the speed is determined
by the drive physical detail, sectors per track as well as RPM.

And any decent motherboard shouldnt have that
problem when booting one SATA drive either.
 
SATA vs IDE

Currently there's no difference in speed.

The main real-world differences are:

SATAs slim cable improves airflow,
This can be a major factor with the amount of heat
generated in modern pcs. Hot drives die sooner.
Modern drives get hotter too.

SATA is one drive per cable, so you are usually
limited to half the number of drives than with IDE
 
Mike Redrobe said:
SATA vs IDE

Currently there's no difference in speed.

The main real-world differences are:

SATAs slim cable improves airflow,
This can be a major factor with the amount of heat
generated in modern pcs. Hot drives die sooner.
Modern drives get hotter too.

SATA is one drive per cable, so you are usually
limited to half the number of drives than with IDE
Click to expand...

Okay, theoretically they allow more airflow, but I tuck the flat ribbon
cable down to the side of the case the motherboard is on, flat against the
side, with only a single fold for the tuck and another to get it over to the
port on the motherboard. There is very little cable at all exposed to the
airflow of the case. I cannot see how the SATA cable would allow anymore air
through the case than tucking a ribbon cable does. I could see if someone
just let a ribbon cable dangle around in there, such as what Dell, Gateway,
and others used to do with IDE cables, but that's just carelessness.

There is a difference in speed, as throughput for cached operations are
faster, and the use of Native Command Queueing is also faster, if the
motherboard and drive supports it. There's not a huge difference, but it is,
in fact, faster by a marginal amount overall.

Also, originally motherboards only provided 2 SATA ports, but modern boards
usually provide 4 ports, unless you buy low end, so you can have as many
drives as you'd ever need in a case.
 
Ruel said:
Okay, theoretically they allow more airflow, but I tuck the flat ribbon
cable down to the side of the case the motherboard is on, flat against the
side, with only a single fold for the tuck and another to get it over to
the port on the motherboard. There is very little cable at all exposed to
the airflow of the case. I cannot see how the SATA cable would allow
anymore air through the case than tucking a ribbon cable does. I could see
if someone just let a ribbon cable dangle around in there, such as what
Dell, Gateway, and others used to do with IDE cables, but that's just
carelessness.

There is a difference in speed, as throughput for cached operations are
faster, and the use of Native Command Queueing is also faster, if the
motherboard and drive supports it. There's not a huge difference, but it
is, in fact, faster by a marginal amount overall.
Click to expand...

Can you in a double-blind test identify which machine has the SATA drive by
your perception of the performance? A difference so slight that you can
only identify it by comparison of benchmarks is of no importance.
 
Mike Redrobe said:
SATA vs IDE
Click to expand...
Currently there's no difference in speed.
Click to expand...
The main real-world differences are:
Click to expand...
SATAs slim cable improves airflow,
This can be a major factor with the amount of heat generated in modern pcs.
Click to expand...

Nope, hardly ever.
Hot drives die sooner.
Modern drives get hotter too.
Bullshit.

SATA is one drive per cable, so you are usually
limited to half the number of drives than with IDE
Click to expand...

More bullshit.
 
Okay, theoretically they allow more airflow,
Click to expand...

And that is hardly ever a major problem.
but I tuck the flat ribbon cable down to the side of the case the motherboard
is on, flat against the side, with only a single fold for the tuck and another
to get it over to the port on the motherboard. There is very little cable at
all exposed to the airflow of the case. I cannot see how the SATA cable would
allow anymore air through the case than tucking a ribbon cable does.
Click to expand...

It still does, but its a minor effect.
I could see if someone just let a ribbon cable dangle around in there, such as
what Dell, Gateway, and others used to do with IDE cables, but that's just
carelessness.
Click to expand...

In practice its a minor effect, and you can prove that
using the SMART temp of the drive with both configs.
There is a difference in speed,
Click to expand...

Not one you can pick with a double blind trial
without being allowed to use a benchmark.
as throughput for cached operations are faster,
Click to expand...

Pity that cache is so small and any effect the higher interface
speed might have is completely swamped by the OS caching.
and the use of Native Command Queueing is also faster,
Click to expand...

Not one you can pick with a double blind trial without being
allowed to use a benchmark with desktop systems.
if the motherboard and drive supports it.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the motherboard at all.
There's not a huge difference, but it is, in fact, faster by a marginal amount
overall.
Click to expand...

Not one you can pick with a double blind trial without being
allowed to use a benchmark with desktop systems.
Also, originally motherboards only provided 2 SATA ports, but modern boards
usually provide 4 ports, unless you buy low end, so you can have as many
drives as you'd ever need in a case.
Click to expand...

And you can add more ports if you must have them.
And the optical drives arent normally SATA too.
 
Roast your drives if you like,
Click to expand...

I choose to run the well below what the manufacturer
allows, and dont use sata cables to do that.

And I have noticed that modern drives are a lot easier to
keep to the temps I prefer than the older drives were too.
I`ll bet you change them often.
Click to expand...

You just lost your bet. I havent lost one in over a decade now
and that one wasnt due to the temperature of the drive anyway.
1 per cable is half of 2 per cable in my world.
Click to expand...

You need a new world. What matters
is how many drives are supported.
 
Mike said:
Roast your drives if you like, I`ll bet you change them often.


1 per cable is half of 2 per cable in my world.
Click to expand...

The number per cable is not as important as the number of connectors on the
motherboard.
 
J. Clarke said:
The number per cable is not as important as the number of connectors
on the motherboard.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

The number of drives per cable is a major difference between SATA
and IDE...which is what this thread is about.
 
Currently there's no difference in speed.
Can you in a double-blind test identify which machine has the SATA drive
by
your perception of the performance? A difference so slight that you can
only identify it by comparison of benchmarks is of no importance.
Click to expand...

There's no argument there, but the original statement was that there was no
difference. It should have been stated that there was no discernable
difference...
 
Mike Redrobe said:
Roast your drives if you like, I`ll bet you change them often.


1 per cable is half of 2 per cable in my world.
Click to expand...

And 2 SATA convertors per ATA channel is still the same amount of drives as before.
 
Back
Top