View Full Version : Two SATA drives - performance impact?

11-24-04, 08:07 PM
What kind of performance impact will there be to having two SATA drives hooked up to the SATA controller on my Intel 865PERL mobo? I know back in the days of EIDE, having two drives generally slowed down the system. Is it any different with SATA? Or can the two drives coexist peacefully and both have excellent performance?

11-25-04, 12:47 AM
2 SATA drives in raid 0 configuration blow away anything IDE has to offer. Hell, just regular SATA is faster than IDE.

11-25-04, 01:48 AM
If ya talking not about raid , but just connecting two SATA drives to one controller ? then no , no speed loss but i don't have your specific controller , i have one build in my motherboard and got two SATA drives 300gig Maxline III and WD 200gig ,also 2 DVDRWs on IDE no problem also tested same setup on different motherboard Neo Platinum... also had no trouble.

11-25-04, 02:52 AM
afaik all SATA channels are seperate? I dont see why you would loose any performance at all using both sata connection.

11-25-04, 02:55 AM
Unless it was software controlled somehow...but what kind of cheap as hell motherboard would do that? That would be slow as ****. Would essentially make DMA useless.

Bill The Cat
11-25-04, 03:47 AM
2 SATA drives in raid 0 configuration blow away anything IDE has to offer. Hell, just regular SATA is faster than IDE.

It doesn't make much difference unless you're maxing out the SATA bus, which I doubt anyone in this forum is doing. SATA in my opinion is purely a convinence thing: better cabling, auto master/slave detection, NCQ, &tc.

11-25-04, 09:03 AM
ok cool, no i was just gonna use two drives for more space. sounds like it won't be an issue as with ide. now the real question is, when is WD coming out with a native sata raptor thats 10000rpm 120gb+ ? :)

11-25-04, 10:11 AM
Regular PCs: Most "regular PC users" do not need RAID, and the extra cost of one or more additional hard drives is usually not justified. Most individuals who set up RAID on regular PCs cannot afford hardware RAID and SCSI drives, so they use software RAID or inexpensive IDE/ATA RAID controllers. They are typically setting up RAID solely for performance reasons, and choose RAID 0. Unfortunately, RAID 0 just doesn't improve performance all that much for the way typical PCs are used; I often see gamers setting up RAID 0 systems when most games will take little advantage of it. Meanwhile, the RAID 0 array puts all of the user's data in jeopardy.
If you can tell the difference between 20ms vs. 5ms, you da man Ruined. :D RAID 0 is great for high demand data transfers, nothing more. You might notice your games load up a bit faster, but hardly, if anything, with regards to game performance.

Still fun to goof around with though. :D