PDA

View Full Version : SATA 3.0 vs. Serial ATA 150


Bearclaw
03-22-06, 11:00 PM
I am buying a new hard drive and have a few questions. First, is Serial ATA the same as SATA? and if it is, I'm asssuming 3.0 is better than 150, form what I've read, but I'm not sure. Thanks guys.

Rytr
03-22-06, 11:08 PM
Yes serial ATA is SATA. 150 vs 3.0 does not mean much right now and would not keep me from getting the drive I wanted.

Infinity666
03-23-06, 03:23 AM
And just for your information 3.0 is backwards compatible with 150:thumbsup:

jolle
03-23-06, 05:48 AM
Sata 3.0 the same as SATA300 or "SATA II" as its often misslabeled?
They discourage from using the term SATA II, but it seems popular.. sounds "better" I guess, for sales..

In that case, the main difference is that SATA300 has a roof at 300mb/sec instead of 150mb/sec, speeds harddrives rarely come close to even when bursting.
And as mentioned its backwards compatible, a SATA300 compatible drive will run as normal SATA150 on a SATA150 interface, with a max transfer speed of 150Mb/sec.

Bearclaw
03-23-06, 01:36 PM
So now that that is figured out, the better more current drives are the SATA drives, correct? Ultra ATA is an older form correct? And I also see that there are hard drives like IDE and SCSI and then the SATA form. I am just looking for general info on all these kinds so I know what to get. If you guys can just write a few things about each or something so I have some background info on this that would be great. Thanks alot.

grey_1
03-24-06, 10:15 AM
I'm running a wd raptor 10000 rpm 8 mb cache for my operating system and a wd 250 gb 16 mb cache for storage atm. Sata has come along pretty nicely since the nf2 days, since nf3 and 4 I haven't had any problems. They are also great if you have a cramped case as the cables are no larger than a cat-5. Ultra ata is the older spec, correct there. I would google for harddrive reviews and read up on them. Personally I prefer western digital, some newer maxtors have had trouble with the nf4 chipset, that could be sorted by now tho. Hope this helps!

Dazz
03-26-06, 04:06 PM
Yeah i myself am down to real world speed, which is why i only buy Raptor drives SCSI needs a card and are very expensive for my taste even if they are the best. I have 2 Raptor 740, 74GB and 2 Raptor X, 150GB drives. The Raptor X drives are the fastest SATA drive you can get bare none and it's a SATA-150 drive.

Son Goku
03-26-06, 05:12 PM
Parallel ATA is an older form of ATA if that's what you're refering too, and the transfer rates had tended to be lower from what I had seen.

SCSI does currently have faster transfer rates with Ultra 320 SCSI (320 MB/sec) which had been around for a couple years now, and not sure if they had released a 640 MB/sec SCSI yet or not.. Apperently there's plans for a serial SCSI or something, from what another member here had showed me...

It does require another card, though has tended to have the advantage of disconnection for age. Back in the days of p ata, when 2 devices were on a bus together, say a HDD and a CD drive, then when the CD drive was busy looking for it's data, the HDD couldn't get on the bus as it was in use. In the case of SCSI, the CD drive just disconnects from the bus when it doesn't have something to send, and allows the HDD to do it's thing without the devices getting in each other's way as such. SCSI also allows up to 6 devices (7 SCSI IDs because the card has to have it's own being a device) to be attached to it, rather then just 2. LVD SCSI allows 15 drives to be attached to a single bus... Also, with this number of drives, comes the chance to setup rather large RAID 5 arrays with more then a few drives, in servers and like...

BTW, LVD SCSI cables are also an expense, as is a controller card, as my LVD SCSI cable I'm using right now cost me about $60 or so... My card at the time I bought it, I got it on pricewatch.com for about $154, though it was suggested retail of about twice that when I bought it in 2000... SE SCSI cables are cheaper, but SE Ultra Wide SCSI is limited to 40 MB/sec also, rather then these higher speeds...

jolle
03-26-06, 08:37 PM
Yeah SAS is supposed to replace SCSI, and its SATA compatible, which is good for WD as they can try to "remarket" the Raptor series towards enterprise segment again...

Dazz
03-28-06, 04:31 AM
Didn't know SAS was SATA compatible that will be a good thing, I just benchmarked my two Raptor X drives and in SISoft get 126MB. sec

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=17030&stc=1&d=1143538276

Also with SCSI it's not the MB/sec that gives it it's peformance it's the ablity to handling up and down data at the same time while SATA and IDE do not they have to do one or the other this lowers peformance quite a bit but is perfectly fine in a home PC where servers need alot of data flowing. The MB/sec in SATA and SATA300 comes in handy for cached bust but this is rerely used in the real world peformance.

nutball
03-28-06, 01:03 PM
Yeah SAS is supposed to replace SCSI, and its SATA compatible, which is good for WD as they can try to "remarket" the Raptor series towards enterprise segment again...

Or add windows to their 15k SCSI drives and sell them to gamers for 500 per pop... :)

Dazz
03-29-06, 01:11 AM
Wow i disabled NCQ and got the score up to 136MB/sec nearly as fast as 4x 36GB raptors :eek: