• 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.

SATA and CPU overhead.

R

Rocket_Magnet

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
100
How is the CPU overhead for SATA compared to IDE, in large transfers? I'm intrested in upgrading to SATA, just thought I would ask and get some opinions on it, before I do. If there isn't any difference then I'll just stick with IDE for now.
 
Good question...I actually have never read anything that dealt with cpu overhead on HD's.

I know that SATA supports faster transfer rates (soon to be even better with SATA300) than IDE, that they are as fast or faster, and the wiring is MUCH thinner.

I don't think the cpu overhead really makes much of an impact, or I would have seen it mentioned by now.
 
you should see between 4 and 7 percent usage during full reads/writes...

cards with an onboard I/O processor drop this to the 1/2 % level.

cheers,

dave
 
I'm sure CPU usage is very similar between PATA and SATA. They both use the exact same command set and aren't really any different as far as the CPU is concerned. It's mostly physical layer (the wires and transceivers) that are different.
 
I'm almost positive I saw something about it at xbitlabs.com. Don't have time to look but I thought SATA was a bit higher in cpu usage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top