Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Either the
Maxtor 160GB S-ATA w/ 8MB cache OEM or
Seagate 160.0GB w/ 8MB cache OEM (ata-100 i believe)

Whats the main difference between ata and sata? Though I've heard Seagate's hdd are the fastest among the brands for 7200.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Quote:


Originally Posted by Evil XP2400

Yup, go SATA and never look back.

I've checked and maxtor sata has 9.3 access time, while the seagate ata has 8.5 access time. Is the access time something to look for when buying hdd ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
yes, but you also have to look at the latency in the transfer methods. Despite the maxtor having a longer seek time, it will be faster overall because SATA is so much faster than ATA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Quote:


Originally Posted by Denmor

yes, but you also have to look at the latency in the transfer methods. Despite the maxtor having a longer seek time, it will be faster overall because SATA is so much faster than ATA.

ty, so which brand would u go with?
Maxtor or WD ?
Seagate drives are almost $20 more expensive for the sata 200gb.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,555 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Nob

ty, so which brand would u go with?
Maxtor or WD ?
Seagate drives are almost $20 more expensive for the sata 200gb.

I've always had a good experience with western digital, I just got a WD80gb SATA today from new egg and it's wonderfull, It's so quiet, and fast compared to the IDE drive I was using......

I have it on my POS net rig, cant wait to put it on the A64 rig.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
I like maxtors personally because they have always been good to me. But seriously Brand is just a brand it dosnt matter much.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
FOR my girlfriends PC....
The drive was defective... i know because i swapped out an old 10gig fujitsu
and windows installed fine.... ive had problems with maxtor in the past also
so i would recomend the Caviar.... western digital rocks....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,395 Posts
I haven't gone SATA yet, but man you guys sure paint a rosy picture. Is the difference between 133 MB/s (ATA) and 150 MB/s (SATA, currently) really all that noticable in normal operations? Sure if I'm moving a 4GB DVD image around, or installing a large software distribution...but those are not typical day-to-day things, they are rather infrequent for most people. I guess I'm just skeptical, considering how enthusiastic the SATA RAID advocates are in direct contrast to the empirical benchmarks and tests I have read.

I also heard that SATA drives seem to fail faster than ATA drives. This would make sense to me, only because it is newer, less evolved technology. Anyone experience problems of this nature yet?

I'll get to SATA one day, but I'm not really in any hurry until the next generation (300 MB/s).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by VulcanDragon

I haven't gone SATA yet, but man you guys sure paint a rosy picture. Is the difference between 133 MB/s (ATA) and 150 MB/s (SATA, currently) really all that noticable in normal operations? Sure if I'm moving a 4GB DVD image around, or installing a large software distribution...but those are not typical day-to-day things, they are rather infrequent for most people. I guess I'm just skeptical, considering how enthusiastic the SATA RAID advocates are in direct contrast to the empirical benchmarks and tests I have read.

I also heard that SATA drives seem to fail faster than ATA drives. This would make sense to me, only because it is newer, less evolved technology. Anyone experience problems of this nature yet?

I'll get to SATA one day, but I'm not really in any hurry until the next generation (300 MB/s).

SATA is faster, but not noticably in day to day operations. For the most part, drives that use the ATA 133 spec (similar to AGP 8x), don't even use all of the available bandwidth. The only exceptions are the Western Digital Raptors and the new Maxtor Diamondmax with the 16mb cache (both SATA and use it to the max). Those are the only drives that have superior performance over their PATA counterparts. If you are not planning on getting either of the aformentioned drives, I would get a Seagate that has the new five year warranty. I was shocked to see the sticker on the box the last time I was looking at Best Buy. That warranty is well worth a little bit extra cash.
 

·
Linux Guru
Joined
·
5,734 Posts
Even though the speed difference is not noticable, I would still recommend getting a SATA drive to have interoperability with future mobos, after all all of my HDDs have lasted longer than any mobo i have had.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,983 Posts
To say that SATA performance increase isnt worth the very little extra dollars you gotta pay to get one is just being a tightwad. SATA is noticeably quicker even in day-to-day operations. Think about it. You only get 150 Mbps in bursts. So you get most of the speed in small operations which is mostly what day-to-day usage is. I have one and will never go back. Plus you dont have to deal with bulky IDE cables. You know what they say, "Dont knock it til you try it."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
SCSI i used to use the scuz a while back but its too expensive...
but i still have some scuzzi shtuff laying around and its still more capable than
SATA nad PATA

using 36gb raptor now for OS / games
and 80gb PATA for storage.... i dont store much i burn everything
Religously.... unfortunately Technolust was not a choice in the religion poll
But hey maybe we all can have some of the Virgin mary grilled cheese good ness
in our Tummy......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,395 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by digitalphreak

To say that SATA performance increase isnt worth the very little extra dollars you gotta pay to get one is just being a tightwad.

Well, if you're going to call me a tightwad for insisting on a good value on my dollars spent, then I guess I'm a tightwad. The numbers just don't add up.

I just checked prices on NewEgg. A 74 GB SATA Raptor is $176, or $2.38 per GB. An 80 GB Maxtor PATA drive is only $63, or $0.79 per GB. And CompUSA over the weekend was selling 250 GB Caviar PATA drives for $200, or $0.80 per GB.

So that SATA drive costs literally three times as much as its PATA competitors. Even considering that the Raptor is a 10,000rpm drive and the Maxtor is only a 7200rpm drive, I am simply skeptical that the Raptor provides three times the performance of the PATA drive. And if it does not, then the value is simply not there. I did not go looking for them, but if you know of some benchmarks that demonstrate that there is a 3x performance gap, I will of course retract that statement.

(Edit: Wow, NewEgg has a 200 GB Maxtor OEM drive for only $115...that's only $0.57 per GB!)

Quote:


SATA is noticeably quicker even in day-to-day operations. Think about it. You only get 150 Mbps in bursts. So you get most of the speed in small operations which is mostly what day-to-day usage is. I have one and will never go back. Plus you dont have to deal with bulky IDE cables. You know what they say, "Dont knock it til you try it."

The cables are a plus, certainly. But I'm not willing to pay the 300% premium to get the better cables.

And I'm not really "knocking it", I'm just pointing out some truths that perhaps people have not considered. Is SATA faster than PATA? Of course it is, I never disputed that. Is that speed increase 300% to match the premium price? Probably not. Whether to spend the extra money for the diminishing returns is a personal choice that depends on your discretionary cash and how you use storage. Personally I can afford new SATA drives no problem, but until we hit the 300 MB/s bandwidth, I don't see the value yet. If I'm going to spend upwards of $200, I want 250 GB drive, not a lousy 74 GB but somewhat faster drive. I need space more than speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by digitalphreak

To say that SATA performance increase isnt worth the very little extra dollars you gotta pay to get one is just being a tightwad. SATA is noticeably quicker even in day-to-day operations. Think about it. You only get 150 Mbps in bursts. So you get most of the speed in small operations which is mostly what day-to-day usage is. I have one and will never go back. Plus you dont have to deal with bulky IDE cables. You know what they say, "Dont knock it til you try it."

SATA is not faster than PATA. Period. The reason that the Raptor is faster is because it is 10,000 RPM and not 7200 RPM. Plus the 8mb cache. The fact is that the ATA133 bus doesn't even get used, so what difference would it make if the bus was changed to 150Mb?? The point is that drives are mechanical and the biggest factor is rotational speed, seek times and cache. ATA buses don't get filled just like AGP buses don't get filled. The cables are definately a nice feature of SATA, but that is the only benefit if you are still using a 7200 RPM drive. If the PATA version is cheaper and you want to get it, there will be not difference, unless you are talking about a Raptor. I love my Raptor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,983 Posts
You all must be smokin something to honestly sit back and say SATA isnt faster than PATA. And there is 80 gb SATA drives for 60 bucks opposed to PATA 80 gb for 55 bucks. And that is with only a 2 mb buffer.

Hey, I weighed the differences a long time ago. What you all are saying is almost like saying there isnt much difference between XPs and 64s, when there is up to a 30 % difference.

Uh-oh. This just in. The first 80 gb IDE drive I see with an 8mb buffer (not too mention, still a slower data transfer rate) is 83 dollars!!!!

Man oh man... What a BARGAIN... Need I say more?

Edit: Well... They have a crap ATA 100 for 58 bucks. Well still seems to me that SATA is still the better bargain all the way around. And Yep its faster than PATA.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top