SATA vs. ATA

[stelleg151]

I was wondering how much of a noticable performance difference there is between a SATA 133 hd and a ATA 100 hd, both with 8mb cache, 7200rpm.

 

[Sonic587]

Not much, if any over a standard ATA100 8MB.

 

[bob4432]

from what i have read, at this point the sata drives are just pata drives with different connectors, except the raptors, so i don't think you will notice anything different

 

[techwanabe]

I've been wondering that myself. I remember feeling a good difference when jumping up to a 7200 rpm drive on ATA100, but if SATA 133 isn't noticably better, then I don't see the point in recommending folks who buy a prebuilt computer spend the extra money on that feature.

 

[Subhuman25]

Originally posted by: bob4432
from what i have read, at this point the sata drives are just pata drives with different connectors, except the raptors, so i don't think you will notice anything different

And just how are Raptors the exception?
I'll tell you...they aren't.Raptors are exactly the same,just different speed. 10,000 RPM vs 7,200 RPM drives.It has nothing to do with SATA vs PATA

 

[Zepper]

Maxtor largely created ATA 133 out of 'whole cloth' as a marketing ploy and it has never become an industrywide stardard. Almost everyone went along as it was basically a "free" bigger number (over the ATA 100 true standard) to use in advertising. No difference in day-to-day use. No current 7200 rpm ATA drive exceeds about 40MB/sec or so in actual use.
. Eventually, all ATA will be SATA as the cabling is more compact and there are no jumpers to confuse assemblers. And when volume is ramped up and finally exceeds PATA in production, it will also become cheaper for the mfrs - always a strong incentive.
.bh.

 

[oldman420]

well I think that now that sata on board is starting to mature we will see a difference.I have 2 wd160 7200 8 meg drives one on sata and one on ata the sata one does about 10 MB/s better than the ata drive and the Io graph is a lot smoother on the sata.
get hdspeed, great little freeware benchmarking program.

 

[MezzUp]

Originally posted by: bob4432
from what i have read, at this point the sata drives are just pata drives with different connectors......

Hmm, talking about the bridges on many drives that basicly is an SATA adaptor for a PATA drive?

Anyway, the small possible diffrence in PATA vs. SATA is because the chache can be accessed faster with SATA

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Subhuman25

Originally posted by: bob4432
from what i have read, at this point the sata drives are just pata drives with different connectors, except the raptors, so i don't think you will notice anything different

And just how are Raptors the exception?
I'll tell you...they aren't.Raptors are exactly the same,just different speed. 10,000 RPM vs 7,200 RPM drives.It has nothing to do with SATA vs PATA

without doing a bunch of reseach i remeber that the new 2nd gen raptors were using some scsi type queuing or something to be a little better than the older ones in addition to just an increase in spindle speed.

 

[Viper96720]

Raptors use a bridge. Why you can use the old molex plug. Instead of only the sata power.

 

[DrCool]

I recently ran HD Tach 3.0.1.0 on my system:

1 Seagate Barracuda IV 80GB ATA100 7200rpm 2mb cache
1 Seagate 7200.7 80GB SATA 8MB cache

SATA was connected via onboard PROMISE FAST TRACK 276

BURST SPEED

ata100 - 51.5MB/s
sata - 80.9MB/s

RANDOM ACCESS

ata100 - 13.8MS
sata - 12.8MS

AVERAGE READ

ata100 - 37.5MB/s
sata - 47.2MB/s

CPU Utilization

ata100 - 14%
sata - 4%

so, I wouldn't call the difference MINIMAL.. but substantial!
also note that SEAGATE is the only current HD manufacturer producing NATIVE SATA drives..

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: DrCool
I recently ran HD Tach 3.0.1.0 on my system:

1 Seagate Barracuda IV 80GB ATA100 7200rpm 2mb cache
1 Seagate 7200.7 80GB SATA 8MB cache

SATA was connected via onboard PROMISE FAST TRACK 276

BURST SPEED

ata100 - 51.5MB/s
sata - 80.9MB/s

RANDOM ACCESS

ata100 - 13.8MS
sata - 12.8MS

AVERAGE READ

ata100 - 37.5MB/s
sata - 47.2MB/s

CPU Utilization

ata100 - 14%
sata - 4%

so, I wouldn't call the difference MINIMAL.. but substantial!
also note that SEAGATE is the only current HD manufacturer producing NATIVE SATA drives..

you have a 2mb cache drive and 8mb cache. not equal

HD Tach 3.x on my 80GB WD 8mb cache drive:

random access: 14ms

burst: 78MB/s

average read: 49.3MB/s

cpu utilization: 2%

and here is my u160 10krpm scsi drive:

random access: 8ms

burst: 93MB/s

average read: 57MB/s

cpu utlization: 1%

compared to the numbers my 8mb cache drive got, i think the difference is pretty close and mine beats yours in a couple of places, this is why i either buy scsi or pata, no need for sata, imho.

 

[JediJeb]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Subhuman25

Originally posted by: bob4432
from what i have read, at this point the sata drives are just pata drives with different connectors, except the raptors, so i don't think you will notice anything different

And just how are Raptors the exception?
I'll tell you...they aren't.Raptors are exactly the same,just different speed. 10,000 RPM vs 7,200 RPM drives.It has nothing to do with SATA vs PATA

without doing a bunch of reseach i remeber that the new 2nd gen raptors were using some scsi type queuing or something to be a little better than the older ones in addition to just an increase in spindle speed.

From what I remember the Raptors are also based on SCSI hardware which is also why it has the 5 year warranty.

 

[OMGoddess]

I just get SATA for the cable, that alone is worth it.

 

[DrCool]

bob4432

I appreciate you posting your scores, but you can't directly compare them to my results, unless you have the EXACT same setup. If i put the two drives you listed in my setup, and benchmarked them, then we'd have a fair playing field, or if you put my two in yours.. but otherwise, it's not a fair comparison

here is my complete setup:

Intel Penitum IV 1.80 478PIN Willamette (256KB Level 2 Cache, .18 micron, 1.75v core)
ASUS P4PE Deluxe (Bios 1007, Intel 845PE chipset, Promise FastTrack 276 SATA)
512MB x 1 Crucial PC2100 (cas 2.5)
BFG nVidia GeForce FX5200 AGP 256MB (4x AGP)
LiteOn 16x DVD-ROM IDE
Sony 1.44MB Floppy Drive
Seagate 80GB Barracuda IV ATA/100 (7200rpm, 2MB cache)
Seagate 80GB 7200.7 SATA (7200rpm, 8MB cache)
Enermax 350W Whisper Power Supply

 

[Adn4n]

The baracuda is 150, not 133.

 

[OMGoddess]

One more thing is the price differences are neligible.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: DrCool
bob4432

I appreciate you posting your scores, but you can't directly compare them to my results, unless you have the EXACT same setup. If i put the two drives you listed in my setup, and benchmarked them, then we'd have a fair playing field, or if you put my two in yours.. but otherwise, it's not a fair comparison

here is my complete setup:

Intel Penitum IV 1.80 478PIN Willamette (256KB Level 2 Cache, .18 micron, 1.75v core)
ASUS P4PE Deluxe (Bios 1007, Intel 845PE chipset, Promise FastTrack 276 SATA)
512MB x 1 Crucial PC2100 (cas 2.5)
BFG nVidia GeForce FX5200 AGP 256MB (4x AGP)
LiteOn 16x DVD-ROM IDE
Sony 1.44MB Floppy Drive
Seagate 80GB Barracuda IV ATA/100 (7200rpm, 2MB cache)
Seagate 80GB 7200.7 SATA (7200rpm, 8MB cache)
Enermax 350W Whisper Power Supply

i agree, but you are comparing a 8mb cache drive to a 2mb cache drive, i put my 8mb pata drive up since it would be on par with a 8mb sata drive in speed. i have an old 9GB 2mb cache 7200rpm drive on a xp2000 machine with 512MB of ram, i will bench that and post scores.

the 2mb 9GB seagate is slow, but in that same computer(xp2000/512MBPC3200/nforce2 board) i also have a 120MB 8MB cache WD and it seems right on par with my 80MB 8MB cache and your 80MB 8MB cache drive even though the computer it is in is quite a bit slower than yours and my main one.

 

[JellyBaby]

Aren't the new Maxtor MaxLine III (and DiamondMax 10) drives native SATA from the ground up?

 

[MezzUp]

I don't know about the Maxtors, but the Seagate Barracudas are native SATAs from ground, even support NQC I think

 

[stelleg151]

Ok, as usual this thread has wandered a bit. Only the first couple of guys actually attempted to answer the question. But from the jist of things its sounding like the answer is no, the difference is basically negligable between ATA 100 and SATA 133 (both with 7200rpm and 8mb cache).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: DrCool
I recently ran HD Tach 3.0.1.0 on my system:

1 Seagate Barracuda IV 80GB ATA100 7200rpm 2mb cache
1 Seagate 7200.7 80GB SATA 8MB cache

SATA was connected via onboard PROMISE FAST TRACK 276

BURST SPEED

ata100 - 51.5MB/s
sata - 80.9MB/s

RANDOM ACCESS

ata100 - 13.8MS
sata - 12.8MS

AVERAGE READ

ata100 - 37.5MB/s
sata - 47.2MB/s

CPU Utilization

ata100 - 14%
sata - 4%

so, I wouldn't call the difference MINIMAL.. but substantial!
also note that SEAGATE is the only current HD manufacturer producing NATIVE SATA drives..

The Cuda 7200.7 is two generations newer than the IV, it has 8 MB of cache vs 2 MB for the IV, and S-ATA 7200.7's come with their acoustic management turned off by default.

Hardly a fair comparison.

 

[Viper96720]

Originally posted by: stelleg151
Ok, as usual this thread has wandered a bit. Only the first couple of guys actually attempted to answer the question. But from the jist of things its sounding like the answer is no, the difference is basically negligable between ATA 100 and SATA 133 (both with 7200rpm and 8mb cache).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep since transfer speeds are well below those standards.. Not counting burst transfer rates. Put a bunch in raid-0 and you'll get closer.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Viper96720

Originally posted by: stelleg151
Ok, as usual this thread has wandered a bit. Only the first couple of guys actually attempted to answer the question. But from the jist of things its sounding like the answer is no, the difference is basically negligable between ATA 100 and SATA 133 (both with 7200rpm and 8mb cache).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep since transfer speeds are well below those standards.. Not counting burst transfer rates. Put a bunch in raid-0 and you'll get closer.

sata is 150, not 133. you will not touch those rates with one drive, need to be a striping raid. stellag151 - you ar correct, the answer is no, no big difference between 2 7200 8mb cache drives if one is sata or one is pata. save the $$$ and get the pata,

 

[Etruscan]

Originally posted by: Sunner

The Cuda 7200.7 is two generations newer than the IV, it has 8 MB of cache vs 2 MB for the IV, and S-ATA 7200.7's come with their acoustic management turned off by default.

Hardly a fair comparison.

How do you turn on the acoustic management?

Also, the 7200.7s do not have NCQ except for one 160G modelST32160827AS.

The 7200.8 drives are all native, with NCQ support, they were announced in june, http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20040617/index.html, for a Q3 release, but we haven't seen them yet. They should be pretty nifty, with 16M cache and all.

Also, which boards support NCQ, or is it purely in the drive?