My motherboard has SATA but only supports ATA/100 on the IDEs. i know that SATA is better than IDE but my last harddrive was a ATA./133 that came with a pci card for ata 133. my questions is will i get better performance using it in the ATA/100 slot or on the PCI card?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Hard Drive Performance?
- Thread starter xphantg0d
- Start date
Thr truth is, it doesn't matter. That's because there is no current hard drive that even maxxes out the PATA/100 interface, let alone the PATA/133 or SATA interface. And these days we're beginning to see a few hard drives that can start to max out a PATA/66 interface.
Furthermore, using a PATA/133 card instead of the motherboard's native PATA/100 ports may actually slow down the total performance of your system. That's because the native IDE controller is integrated into most South bridges, which these days communicate with the main North bridge of any given chipset at well above PCI bus bandwidth (at least 266 MB/s) - while the add-in PATA/133 controller card will always be hobbled by the 133 MB/s (throughput that's shared between all of your PCI cards combined) PCI bus itself.
Furthermore, using a PATA/133 card instead of the motherboard's native PATA/100 ports may actually slow down the total performance of your system. That's because the native IDE controller is integrated into most South bridges, which these days communicate with the main North bridge of any given chipset at well above PCI bus bandwidth (at least 266 MB/s) - while the add-in PATA/133 controller card will always be hobbled by the 133 MB/s (throughput that's shared between all of your PCI cards combined) PCI bus itself.
Not much difference, either. But most add-in PCI controller cards will have a lot more driver overhead than native IDE controllers, which in turn increases the CPU utilization and may contribute to slower overall system performance.xphantg0d said:
Running Windows off of a PCI card will complicate things a bit, as far as setup and driver installation is concerned.xphantg0d said:
Right now i am running windows on my HD which is attached to the PCI card but the HD is getting crowded and i just bought a second one so i want to copy all my files to the new hd and wipe my old one. I did initially have some problems insalling windows off of the PCI slot but it seems to runn well now. But i want my new hd to be my primary and i want to get good performance since im going to be using it to run games like ut2004.
I
Ice Czar
Guest
you dont need the PCI Card unless your BIOS doesnt support 48bit LBA
(Logical Block Addressing)
which would depend on the mobo, if its new it would, if its older there maybe a BIOS upgrade
a card would employ SCSI drivers and thus the 48bit addressing scheme would be moot
as mentioned the internal performance of the HDD is the limiting factor
that changes with multiple HDD in any array larger than dual channel (RAID 0),
where all the interfaces mentioned are pretty much bottlenecked in a 32bit 33MHz PCI bus, the SATA bus if actually implemented where its not on the southbridge and thus part of the the PCI Bus is only a 17MB/s difference (133MB/s vs 150MB/s)
which is why on a server or workstation you see 64bit 66>133MHz PCI & PCI-X slots
(532MB/s > 1066MB/s) and the new PCI Express standard
of course its pretty much impossible for a single user to even come close to using 532MB/s
even using a massive RAID array, there just arent aps that need to write that much
Video Editing at the very topend is just fine at 320MB/s
or for most resolutions even 160MB/s
which is the single channel throughput speed of a U160 or U320 SCSI array
on a 64bit PCI slot
a multiuser environment however is a different matter
(Logical Block Addressing)
which would depend on the mobo, if its new it would, if its older there maybe a BIOS upgrade
a card would employ SCSI drivers and thus the 48bit addressing scheme would be moot
as mentioned the internal performance of the HDD is the limiting factor
that changes with multiple HDD in any array larger than dual channel (RAID 0),
where all the interfaces mentioned are pretty much bottlenecked in a 32bit 33MHz PCI bus, the SATA bus if actually implemented where its not on the southbridge and thus part of the the PCI Bus is only a 17MB/s difference (133MB/s vs 150MB/s)
which is why on a server or workstation you see 64bit 66>133MHz PCI & PCI-X slots
(532MB/s > 1066MB/s) and the new PCI Express standard
of course its pretty much impossible for a single user to even come close to using 532MB/s
even using a massive RAID array, there just arent aps that need to write that much
Video Editing at the very topend is just fine at 320MB/s
or for most resolutions even 160MB/s
which is the single channel throughput speed of a U160 or U320 SCSI array
on a 64bit PCI slot
a multiuser environment however is a different matter
I
Ice Czar
Guest
you probably can if you like, and if you get a new dual layer DVD burner for your birthday
you could then move it to the PCI if you like, the performance should be the same
Partitioning and Optimizing Tutorial > Optimizing Physical Configuration
you have a new mobo or is it a couple of years old?
you could then move it to the PCI if you like, the performance should be the same
Partitioning and Optimizing Tutorial > Optimizing Physical Configuration
you have a new mobo or is it a couple of years old?
I
Ice Czar
Guest
hook it up
Start > Run > (type) diskmgmt.msc > if its reported larger than 137GB your good to go
you do need XP w\ SP1 or W2K w\ SP2 however, so install those first
or there is a simple registry entry to do the same thing
RClick the unallocated space > Partition & Format
Requirements to Break the 137GB Barrier
Start > Run > (type) diskmgmt.msc > if its reported larger than 137GB your good to go
you do need XP w\ SP1 or W2K w\ SP2 however, so install those first
or there is a simple registry entry to do the same thing
RClick the unallocated space > Partition & Format
Requirements to Break the 137GB Barrier