SATA vs. IDE

[garth2002]

Is there a noticeable difference between SATA drives and IDE drives for gaming?
Has anyone come across any sites that have tested for performance results between serial hard drives and IDE hard drives?
It seems like a simple test set up, just wondering if anyone has bothered to test it with all other components being equal.

Thanks.

 

[NinjaGnome]

If you get a raptor youll have faster boot times, I just like how tiny the cables are

 

[Ike0069]

The difference won't be noticeable among 7200 RPM drives, but IMO using the smaller cables is worth the few extra $$ for SATA. I really wish I had gotten a SATA HD just for the smaller cable.

 

[Sqube]

As far as I've been able to ascertain in roaming the net, there's no demonstrable benefit. Hard drives aren't able to saturate what IDE gave you, but we get SATA anyway.

It's the same thing with AGP vs. PCI-e. We didn't really have anything capable of overloading AGP, but we've got PCI-e which gives us even more. New technologies come along and they get pushed out into the world. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Alex]

the difference from ATA133 to SATA150 will be about as awesome as the difference from ATA66 to ATA100 and then to ATA133...
however, the tiny cables are a total plus (less clutter, improved airflow), NCQ is nice and so are raptors and their 10Krpm of pure goodness!

 

[mooncancook]

you are not going to notice any difference in performance. but if price is similar, i would get SATA just for the smaller neater cables.

 

[Zucarita9000]

Nah, no real difference between them. However, I'm a sucker for those little cables... go for it.

 

[Vegito]

dont forget newer board has less pata plugs.. some i seen only has 1 pata and 6 sata.. and if you drop in 2 dvd drives, ur sol

 

[LED]

http://storagereview.com/

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: garth2002
Is there a noticeable difference between SATA drives and IDE drives for gaming?
Has anyone come across any sites that have tested for performance results between serial hard drives and IDE hard drives?
It seems like a simple test set up, just wondering if anyone has bothered to test it with all other components being equal.

Thanks.

I'll let you know in a week or so. Everything I've read says "no". But the peeps who use 'em say "yes"

I'm looking for faster load times in games. Or I should say "reload". I'm tired of "dying" in ten seconds, then talking 40 seconds to reload my quick save.

Fern

 

[Ike0069]

Getting a SATA won't really help you with quick loads. How much RAM do you have?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Ike0069
Getting a SATA won't really help you with quick loads. How much RAM do you have?

I gig on the way from the Egg.

Got pissed, ordered 1 gig of ram , a 6800GT and parts for SATA raid.

If RAID 0 sucks, I'll move it to a server at the office and do a mirror set up (for auto bk/ups)

Fern

 

[KoolDrew]

There is no performance difference between SATA and IDE. If there is a performance difference it has nothing to do with SATA or IDE.

 

[imported_X]

Is it true you need a power supply with a special SATA connector to use SATA drives? Or is there a converter you can attach to your current power supply?

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: X
Is it true you need a power supply with a special SATA connector to use SATA drives? Or is there a converter you can attach to your current power supply?

On most drives you can either use a Molex, or a SATA connector. You can't use both at the same time though. Also, there are Molex to SATA converters. They're like a dollar.

 

[imported_X]

Thanks...no performance drop if you use the molex connector or converter right? Does the same apply for power supplies that don't have a PCI-E connector?

 

[Ike0069]

Originally posted by: X
Thanks...no performance drop if you use the molex connector or converter right? Does the same apply for power supplies that don't have a PCI-E connector?

PCI-e connector is 6-pin so it wiil take 3 4-pin Molex connectors, but yes they do make adapters for it.

 

[karlreading]

I went to a diamond max10 200GB drive, on SATA with 7200 / 8 meg cache from a 60 gig gxp 120 ibm wiht 7200 / 2 meg on ata 100, and tbqh, havent noticed any diff really, except for more space and a tiny bit quicker, which in any case, will be down to the 8meg cache rather than anything else.

Having said that, if you were building a new pc now, you wouldent use AGP would you. its the same wiht the hdd's. might as well get SATA. its more future proof and the pricing is very close now. Plus, to qoute everyone else, gotta love dem dinky cabels

karlos

 

[garth2002]

Thanks all,

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't contemplating whether or not to use SATA - I am going to use it in my next machine (hopefully very soon).

I have heard anecdotal accounts of it improving performance, I was just wondering if anyone had ever seen any actual emperical evidence to support this claim. Maybe no one has because it doesn't exist?

Anyway, I'm going with Seagate SATA drives. I know many of you like the Raptors but I happen to be a Seagate fan.

 

[karlreading]

Originally posted by: garth2002
Thanks all,

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't contemplating whether or not to use SATA - I am going to use it in my next machine (hopefully very soon).

I have heard anecdotal accounts of it improving performance, I was just wondering if anyone had ever seen any actual emperical evidence to support this claim. Maybe no one has because it doesn't exist?

Anyway, I'm going with Seagate SATA drives. I know many of you like the Raptors but I happen to be a Seagate fan.

i considered the raptor, but the i realisesd the diamon max 10 gave me the 200Gb of space for £5 more than the 36GB raptor, yet only slightly slower. I think the raptors price per GB is VERY disprapotionate to the actual diffrence you will see performance wise.
karlos

 

[compusaguy]

I don't know what you all are talking about, but the difference between two computers I have with identical specs is huge!

The one with an IDE drive is MUCH slower than the one with SATA. The SATA is like 3-4 times faster in some applications.

 

[garth2002]

compusaguy,

You mean everything is the same between the two computers except the type of hard drives? If so, did you notice a difference even with a fresh install of Windows on both? Very interesting.

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: compusaguy
I don't know what you all are talking about, but the difference between two computers I have with identical specs is huge!

The one with an IDE drive is MUCH slower than the one with SATA. The SATA is like 3-4 times faster in some applications.

Then you have other problems with your computer(s). If you bought them at "Comp USA" they are loaded with junkware, and that is most likely part of your problem.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: garth2002
Thanks all,

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't contemplating whether or not to use SATA - I am going to use it in my next machine (hopefully very soon).

I have heard anecdotal accounts of it improving performance, I was just wondering if anyone had ever seen any actual emperical evidence to support this claim. Maybe no one has because it doesn't exist?

Anyway, I'm going with Seagate SATA drives. I know many of you like the Raptors but I happen to be a Seagate fan.

We're in the same boat (as far as "we're gonna do it"). For years, every thread has been the same-"arificial" benchies show improvement. But the claim is "real world" improvement is zip. Then you see peeps chiming in that they swear that they see improvement in loading apps etc. Whatever.

I predict this thread wil be like the zillion b4 it. So, I'm just gonna do it. If it works -great. If not, I'll put the stuff in a server and do a RAID 1 (mirror) for the bk/up.

Since you're already gonna do. Just do it and see. Down the road, we'l be the guys chiming in saying "yeah I saw improvement", or "it didn't do squat"

Fern

 

[dev0lution]

I'm guessing a lot of the people who think SATA is way better likely noticed a jump between an older IDE drive with 2MB cache versus a newer drive with 8MB cache. Probably not the interface, just newer drives. I notice better load times, but again, it's probably the cache size. I'll see how NCQ is once my 200GB seagate gets here end of the week.