| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 34719 | 2003-06-22 03:35:00 | SATA worth while? | rusty_knifenz (4065) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 154158 | 2003-06-22 03:35:00 | I've got an Abit IT7-MAX2 MB, which supports RAID and SATA, and currently have connected to it 2 80Gb Barracuda drives (set up as one via RAID), but connected in parallel (they drives dont have SATA connectors). The MB came with a PATA to SATA convertor i can use on a drive (and can buy another for the other drive obviously). My question is, apart from the smaller cables, is it worthwhile buying another converter and using SATA? |
rusty_knifenz (4065) | ||
| 154159 | 2003-06-22 03:52:00 | Welcome to the forum. I take it that the cutrrent disks work. :D It's a Bad Idea to fix things which aren't broken. I suspect that SATA drives will cost considerably more than parallel IDE ones, because thety are "new", and therefore not produced in such vast quantities. The price will come down when more people (or, probably, more computer asemblers) buy them More will be bought when the price comes down. :D Unless you have to have the fastest and newest, whatever the cost, why not wait? If the disks you have are fairly new, they will last for quite a long time. And you'd be an exceptional user if the speed difference would makle a difference to you. The small cables are the best feature of them. But again, if you haven't got thermal problems, why bother? Just personal opinion ... but I've still got working MFM 5¼" full height disk drives. :D |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 154160 | 2003-06-22 05:08:00 | later will only get better. its a personal economcis decision u need to decide. smaller cable - better heat mgmt. it is faster say if u compare seagate parallel to serial and also seagate. the fast hdd are IBM or Western Digital. Seagate is ok but not not the fastest. and yes u will pay like $100-150 more for it vs the same GB as a parallel drive of the same maker. the 1st generation is not exactly fast. 2nd is expected to be definitely faster than the traditional hdd's. for eg.. if u have a seagate serial its faster than a seagate parallel. but a seagate serial not not faster than a parallel Western Digitial or IBM Deskstar. how do u prioritise ur hdd? perhaps there other areas better use. if u are buying a hdd regardess then perhaps u can consider it but i will not get a new hdd jus cos its new and i do not really need the extra space. on the other hand, if i were to spend crazy why not consider SCSI :D Nomad. |
nomad (3693) | ||
| 154161 | 2003-06-22 06:41:00 | I don't think there would be any point in using them via the SATA adapter because the drives are still limited with PATA interface. Unless you're flooding the PATA interface at the moment that is. | -=JM=- (16) | ||
| 154162 | 2003-06-22 07:55:00 | I wouldn't bother, at the mo it is a tiny bit faster than the 100/133 bus, but not that you'd notice without a benchmark. Wait till next gen SATA comes out i believe its starts at 300mb so will be a hell of a lot faster - David |
DangerousDave (697) | ||
| 154163 | 2003-06-22 09:27:00 | just to make one thing clear. the interface speed dosn't mean much if the drives are slower than it. at the mo there is no ata drive that can even do 133 let alone 200. one thing to check is the raid and HOW it connects into the chipset. a lot if raid/sata controllers still use the pci bus which limits the speed. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 1 | |||||