Faster: UltraSCSI, or ATA100?
This is a discussion about Faster: UltraSCSI, or ATA100? in the Windows Hardware category; I plan on getting a new hardrive soon , and was debating SCSI vs. ATA100. I already have an Adaptec 2940U. This is just my home rig, 'Net, gaming, word processing, etc. I'm looking for comments/suggestions on the performance difference between picking up a ~18GB UltraSCSI drive for my card, and a ~20GB+ATA100 card.
I plan on getting a new hardrive soon [old 10gigger is full up], and was debating SCSI vs. ATA100. I already have an Adaptec 2940U. This is just my home rig, 'Net, gaming, word processing, etc.
I'm looking for comments/suggestions on the performance difference between picking up a ~18GB UltraSCSI drive for my card, and a ~20GB+ATA100 card [or new mobo]. Both options run around $250±50.
I know the throughput for UltraSCSI is only 20/s [compared to 100/s], but would I notice the offload in CPU ultilization, etc.? I think I'm leaning towards the ATA100, and using the SCSI card for peripherals [CD-ROM/DVD] and back-up hdds.
-bZj
I'm looking for comments/suggestions on the performance difference between picking up a ~18GB UltraSCSI drive for my card, and a ~20GB+ATA100 card [or new mobo]. Both options run around $250±50.
I know the throughput for UltraSCSI is only 20/s [compared to 100/s], but would I notice the offload in CPU ultilization, etc.? I think I'm leaning towards the ATA100, and using the SCSI card for peripherals [CD-ROM/DVD] and back-up hdds.
-bZj
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Dec 31
Jan 2
0
5 minutes
Responses to this topic
Sorry, you can't put such a HD on your card anyway. SCSI U2W or Ultra-160 HDs require a high density 68 pin connector which your card does not have.
Of course SCSI U-160 is WAY faster and less CPU dependent than ATA-100 but its also WAY more expensive.
In your case you would have to buy a compatible card (the Adaptec 29160 is one of the best) before buying that 18Gb HD
Of course SCSI U-160 is WAY faster and less CPU dependent than ATA-100 but its also WAY more expensive.
In your case you would have to buy a compatible card (the Adaptec 29160 is one of the best) before buying that 18Gb HD
I suspect he realizes that.
In answer to the question, the UltraSCSI will be faster but for the added price, I suspect that running the Ultra100 off of a Promise Ultra100 controller will satisfy your needs and the speed difference will be neglible. I would not want to lock myself into SCSI unless I were doing a lot of vid cap (and the ultra100 should be fine for that as well). You should be able to get more than a 30 gig ata100 plus an ata100 card for the price of the SCSI hard drive. Check pricewatch.
In answer to the question, the UltraSCSI will be faster but for the added price, I suspect that running the Ultra100 off of a Promise Ultra100 controller will satisfy your needs and the speed difference will be neglible. I would not want to lock myself into SCSI unless I were doing a lot of vid cap (and the ultra100 should be fine for that as well). You should be able to get more than a 30 gig ata100 plus an ata100 card for the price of the SCSI hard drive. Check pricewatch.
The IDE HDD will be sufficent for almost anything.
CPU utilization is not a problem anymore since the introduction of UDMA.
Sustained transfer rates are almost equal between IDE and SCSI, they're in the 40MB/s area while the fastest SCSI drives have a small advantage of a few MB/s over the fastest IDE drives.
Access times are a different issue, here is a section where SCSI shows it's potential, this is interesting for multitasking.
I think the IBM 75GXP drives are the most favourite for IDE right now, ATA100 and up to 75GB capacity.
IF you want to go SCSI, definetly get a new controller. Your current controller maxes out at only 20MB/s 8)
That's fine for CD/DVD/SCanenr/Tapedrives but not for HDD's.
Get a controller like the Tekram DC390-U2W, I've seen it for $90 plus shipping. It's one generation before U160 but already has LVD support (here 80MB/s) and it'll be enough for a single SCSI HDD, even for 2 to 3 HDD's. The Tekram card comes with all the cables: a 68-pin LVD with terminator, a 68-pin UW and a 50-pin Ultra.
The U160 controllers start around $200 shipped...
Get a nice 10.000rpm SCSI hdd to enjoy the full potential, something like the Seagate Cheetah 18XL (Seagate also makes a 15k rpm HDD, the Cheetah X15, but it's pretty expensive).
Conclusion:
I think the IDE route might be the most cost efficent way for you to go. You get decent speed and huge capacity for your money.
The SCSI route is for professional use (server) or the gamefreaks that have too much money to burn (like me, hehe).
The best way to get the advantages of both worlds is a small but fast SCSI HDD for OS/games and a huge IDE HDD for storage/apps/backups etc.
Not as expensive as a SCSI-only setup but still more money then IDE-only.
CPU utilization is not a problem anymore since the introduction of UDMA.
Sustained transfer rates are almost equal between IDE and SCSI, they're in the 40MB/s area while the fastest SCSI drives have a small advantage of a few MB/s over the fastest IDE drives.
Access times are a different issue, here is a section where SCSI shows it's potential, this is interesting for multitasking.
I think the IBM 75GXP drives are the most favourite for IDE right now, ATA100 and up to 75GB capacity.
IF you want to go SCSI, definetly get a new controller. Your current controller maxes out at only 20MB/s 8)
That's fine for CD/DVD/SCanenr/Tapedrives but not for HDD's.
Get a controller like the Tekram DC390-U2W, I've seen it for $90 plus shipping. It's one generation before U160 but already has LVD support (here 80MB/s) and it'll be enough for a single SCSI HDD, even for 2 to 3 HDD's. The Tekram card comes with all the cables: a 68-pin LVD with terminator, a 68-pin UW and a 50-pin Ultra.
The U160 controllers start around $200 shipped...
Get a nice 10.000rpm SCSI hdd to enjoy the full potential, something like the Seagate Cheetah 18XL (Seagate also makes a 15k rpm HDD, the Cheetah X15, but it's pretty expensive).
Conclusion:
I think the IDE route might be the most cost efficent way for you to go. You get decent speed and huge capacity for your money.
The SCSI route is for professional use (server) or the gamefreaks that have too much money to burn (like me, hehe).
The best way to get the advantages of both worlds is a small but fast SCSI HDD for OS/games and a huge IDE HDD for storage/apps/backups etc.
Not as expensive as a SCSI-only setup but still more money then IDE-only.
At the end of the day it comes down to how much you want to spend and what you use you're computer for. If you're budget conscious then ATA 100 is a good system to choose as the drives are cheeper. Ultra 160 SCSI only really comes into its own when you're computer is acting as a network server, as the increased bandwidth allows for a faster data transfer rate. You'll only see a real difference when several devices eg. two hard drives + and cdroms are being accessed at the same time. With a single drive machine, you probably won't see much benefit from the ultra scsi setup.
OP
Thanks all-
Got the responses I hoped for. ATA100 + Promise looks like the way to go - relegating my old SCSI card to DVD/CD-RW duty. If I get this network admin job I'm applying for maybe I'll have the cash for Ultra160 and do the OS/Games=SCSI and Storage=IDE - but I don't got cash like that now.
Lates,
-bZj
Got the responses I hoped for. ATA100 + Promise looks like the way to go - relegating my old SCSI card to DVD/CD-RW duty. If I get this network admin job I'm applying for maybe I'll have the cash for Ultra160 and do the OS/Games=SCSI and Storage=IDE - but I don't got cash like that now.
Lates,
-bZj
Here is another option, IDE RAID. The IBM 75GXP HD's are ATA/100 and mad cheap. The 45GB one costs a mere $146. Get two of those and put them on a Fastrak100 RAID card. For under $400 u will get a 90GB drive and speeds will be very comparable to ultra160 scsi, at a fraction of the price.
