|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > November 2005 > IDE versus SATA HD.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
IDE versus SATA HD.
|
|
| bernard8950 2005-11-03, 5:47 pm |
|
Is it true that ide hard drives perform slower than sata ones? I'm
upgrading my system to Asus A8N-SLI, AMD ATHLON 64 3200 VENICE CORE,
GAINWARD 6600GT SLI-PCI-E, 256Mb, (2X512MB CRUCIAL,DDR400,PC3200). I'm
not sure which hd will suit the system best. A friend also told me that
SATA hd can be problematic. I play a lot of games.
--
bernard8950
| |
| Dennis Willson 2005-11-03, 5:47 pm |
| If your gaming then you won't (shouldn't) see the difference. Most games use excessive amounts of memory for speed and only
occsionally go to HD. I do lots of BF1942, BF2 and lots of flight simulation ranging from some of the older flight sims to the
newest Falcon. I have also done Warcraft (all versions), Starcraft, Doom and lots of others. All of the ones I have played were
memory intensive and not so much HD (except for initial program load and you won't notice)
SATA is actually primarily for servers. The feature "hot plug" so drives can be replaced without powering down or even rebooting the
server. While SATA II can go 3Mb/s, that's the interface speed and doesn't mean the drives can go that fast. SATA cables are smaller
so they restrict airflow less allowing smaller cases and SATA allows for longer cables for more complex RAID systems as well. SATA
is only 150Mb/s while SATA II is 3Mb/s.
bernard8950 wrote:
> Is it true that ide hard drives perform slower than sata ones? I'm
> upgrading my system to Asus A8N-SLI, AMD ATHLON 64 3200 VENICE CORE,
> GAINWARD 6600GT SLI-PCI-E, 256Mb, (2X512MB CRUCIAL,DDR400,PC3200). I'm
> not sure which hd will suit the system best. A friend also told me that
> SATA hd can be problematic. I play a lot of games.
>
>
| |
| David Magda 2005-11-03, 8:46 pm |
| Dennis Willson <giganews@taz-mania.com> writes:
> SATA is only 150Mb/s while SATA II is 3Mb/s.
You want to try those numbers again?  Do you mean 300Mb/s?
--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
| |
| Dennis Willson 2005-11-03, 8:46 pm |
| OOPs, No I mean 3Gb/s
David Magda wrote:
> Dennis Willson <giganews@taz-mania.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
> You want to try those numbers again? Do you mean 300Mb/s?
>
| |
| Nik Simpson 2005-11-03, 8:46 pm |
|
"Dennis Willson" <giganews@taz-mania.com> wrote in message
news:gJOdnVOc9NL8MvfeRVn-hw@baytsp.com...
> OOPs, No I mean 3Gb/s
>
And for the record, SATA drives (with the possible exception of the ESATA
spec) are no more natively hot-swappable than SCSI or FC.
--
Nik Simpson
|
|
|
|
|