ATA/100 vs ATA/133
We all know this (well most of us ) but here it is in writing: ATA133 should theoretically be 33% faster than ATA100, but my results basically didn't show much of an improvement at all. .
We all know this (well most of us ) but here it is in writing:
http://www.tweakers.com.au/articles/storage/ata133/page1.asp
"ATA133 should theoretically be 33% faster than ATA100, but my results basically didn't show much of an improvement at all."
http://www.tweakers.com.au/articles/storage/ata133/page1.asp
"ATA133 should theoretically be 33% faster than ATA100, but my results basically didn't show much of an improvement at all."
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Once again, it states the obvious ;(
Doesn't PCI max out at 133 MB/S? I just find it very hard for any device to really burst that fast, and right now I am using my ATA-100 disk on a ATA-66 compatible motherboard and there is no difference in real world performance in HD Tach results, only the head room for burst mode is higher in ATA-100. BTW, what will Serial ATA bring to the table? Will we still be able to use existing ATA-33/66/100/133 hard disks and UDMA33 and PIO Mode CD/DVD/CD-RW drives? Will there still be master/slave combinations or will it be like SCSI?
Yeah, last I heard the PCI bus does top out at 133MB/s. 64-bit/66MHz PCI and PCI-X don't have that limitation, but they're needed for high-end SCSI and Gigabit (and the new 10Gb) Ethernet. They'll need to implement something like that into mainstream desktop boards before they can really hope to do anything that will really up IDE transfer speeds (10k RPM anyone?)
Quote:(10k RPM anyone?)
I'm in
I'm in
Burst rates probably, but unless Serial ATA is a major change from what we have now in ATA technology, that's a fairy tale. Nice, but probably not happening. Plus, U320 SCSI is supposed to be coming out in a little while.
Fairytale or not ? Well, if you believe that the goals for serial ATA are fantasies, then its a fairytale. However, there is no reason to believe that IMO. It is however important to understand that serial ATA is an interface, not a new harddrive.
Serial ATA is supposed to be introduced with a speed capapility of 150 MB/sec and evolve to 600 MB/sec speeds. Now we are talking the interface - when harddrives capable of these (sustained) speeds hit the shops is another matter.
And yes, it is "anticipated that there will be adapters to facilitate forward- and backward-compatibility of hard disks on PC systems". Anyone who looks for more info on the matter - go HERE where this info comes from.
H.
Serial ATA is supposed to be introduced with a speed capapility of 150 MB/sec and evolve to 600 MB/sec speeds. Now we are talking the interface - when harddrives capable of these (sustained) speeds hit the shops is another matter.
And yes, it is "anticipated that there will be adapters to facilitate forward- and backward-compatibility of hard disks on PC systems". Anyone who looks for more info on the matter - go HERE where this info comes from.
H.
Hopefully, then, they will also add a faster spindle speed. The reason it appears to be a fairy tale, is because the average throughput on ATA drives really doesn't go above 40MB/s, not including burst rates. 2nd, Isn't the PCI bus limited to 133MB/s, or am I misinformed. If serial ATA doesn't have a faster bus of some sort to go on, that'd prove a bit of a problem for SATA 1.0 and above. Those documents, while intresting didn't tell me a whole lot.
Quote:
Hopefully, then, they will also add a faster spindle speed.
Don't know who "they" are, but the folks tinkering with serial ATA are not making hardrives, only an interface that may enable for example the makers of hardrives to make drives that push out data that fast. De-bottlenecking it's called, and its not only for harddrives.
SCSI drives aren't really that much faster either if you only look to the sustained transfer measurement. Correct me if I'm wrong but the fastest ones currently offer sustained speeds of around 60MB/sec. And you pay a huge premium (say maybe 300-500$) for the controller, the cable and a tiny little 18GB hardrive.
So, after all, I'm pretty happy that someone is doing something.
H.
Hopefully, then, they will also add a faster spindle speed.
Don't know who "they" are, but the folks tinkering with serial ATA are not making hardrives, only an interface that may enable for example the makers of hardrives to make drives that push out data that fast. De-bottlenecking it's called, and its not only for harddrives.
SCSI drives aren't really that much faster either if you only look to the sustained transfer measurement. Correct me if I'm wrong but the fastest ones currently offer sustained speeds of around 60MB/sec. And you pay a huge premium (say maybe 300-500$) for the controller, the cable and a tiny little 18GB hardrive.
So, after all, I'm pretty happy that someone is doing something.
H.
Oh, I've been looking into SCSI myself (need to educate myself on it anyway) and quite a few drives come with 8MB caches, some with even 16 meg 8) WD is the only ATA drive company to come out with 8meg cached ATA drives.
Also, SCSI has use still: 1 controller, but quite a bit more devices per channel than standard ATA controllers. Another one is that SCSI acts as a bus and is better with multiple drives on one channel. It's also available now.
You have to look around, but SCSI controllers (new and from reputable retailers) can be had for under $100--and I'm talking U160 here too. SCSI is better for multi tasking. ATA can only do this with one drive per channel. SCSI can have 7 devices per channel or more (depends on the controller) and work fine.
Also, SCSI has use still: 1 controller, but quite a bit more devices per channel than standard ATA controllers. Another one is that SCSI acts as a bus and is better with multiple drives on one channel. It's also available now.
You have to look around, but SCSI controllers (new and from reputable retailers) can be had for under $100--and I'm talking U160 here too. SCSI is better for multi tasking. ATA can only do this with one drive per channel. SCSI can have 7 devices per channel or more (depends on the controller) and work fine.
I really can't see the advantage of using SCSI in a common desktop PC. I can understand their use in Workstations, and Servers, or in rigs where people are real enthusiasts, but the IDE interface has only gotten better over time, up to ATA-66 anyways. Serial ATA is just the next step up. The price is just too high for SCSI enabled hard disks and while the SCSI cards are a bit cheaper then what they used to be, they are still pricey. The money could be used for a new 7200 RPM IDE disk, video card, or RAM, or even a new motherboard.
The 29160N is for mainstream PC's
http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product...Performance+PCs
This thing goes for 329 bucks.....add in the premium for a SCSI hard disk, is it worth it?
The 29160N is for mainstream PC's
http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product...Performance+PCs
This thing goes for 329 bucks.....add in the premium for a SCSI hard disk, is it worth it?
Shoot, I can get a dual channel Tekram card that does what that Adaptec does for half the cost. Of course, this all depends on some other things...like a new vehicle
