• 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.

How much different is SATA?

G

geckoman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
325
How much different is SATA versus IDE? Besides the obvious advantage of the smaller cable.
 
performance wise i do not think there is a big difference. Ive seen benches where sata and the same drive in IDE format have the same score. Some where the IDE version scores a little better and some where the sata version scores better.
 
I've moved exclusively to SATA on my new system and I can't say I notice any difference at all, besides being easier to work with in the case.
 
Besides the cable? None worth affecting a decision, unless you need next gen SATA features, with the exception of some Western Digital drives. The Raptors (which ironically enough are actually bridged PATA drives) and the Caviar SE16 drives are available exclusively on SATA. All other ATA drives are available with identical performance on PATA and SATA. A PATA drive will use about half a watt more power than an otherwise equal SATA drive.

If you need NCQ or hot-plug, only SATA will deliver that.
 
Quite different actually, PATA transfers data in parallel while sata does serial transfers. That is a HUGE difference! Also the singalling speed is very different. Sata has some interesting new features as well, such as port-mutliplexers, native command q-ing etc.
 
Not to mention depending on your mother board and powersupply, you can add as many sata drives as you can!
 
from a performance standpoint, very little difference.

SATA is just the interface. You're still dealing with the same drive tech on the other end, and the drives themselves have been the bottleneck for years, not the interface. You've still got X amount of platters, spinning at Y speed, with an information density of W, and A amount of heads, which can move at B speed.

Which, in a multi-drive/controller environment, is as it should be, I suppose. The day a single drive can saturate an interface is the day to get a new interface.
 
No more master/slave jumpers to mess with. (Being hot swappable is new to me)
 
sata has more potential i guess, higher throughput and what not, but as of now it isn't faster

i've heard the ncq does help a lot in some situations though, which is only available for sata
 
Don't quote me on this but SATA is supposed to be definately faster. But the only reason it isn't is because we can't saturate what PATA and IDE cables already give us.

I would still definately chose a SATA drive for my next upgrade though over a PATA setup. The small cables alone, coupled with the hot swapability is worth it. Just get SATA if you can. It will make your life easier.
 
native command queing. its supposed to speed up the time it takes to look for things but honestly i havent seen a drive uses it effectively
 
osirus35 said:
native command queing. its supposed to speed up the time it takes to look for things but honestly i havent seen a drive uses it effectively
Click to expand...


NCQ' prioritises (sp?) packets of data for better results - apprently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top