If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about SATA Hard Drive w NCQ
I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II with NCQ Hard Drive
from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS. BTW my processor is an Intel Pentium 4 at 2000 MHz My machine does not support hyperthreading. 1st question: Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not support NCQ serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support hyperthreading? Other questions: My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive. AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options: Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive to. PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this configuration is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly into the motherboard? Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40 pin IDE cable to connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate still limited to 133 mb/sec even though the drive supports up to 150 mb/sec? Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck? Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Your only options for desktop NCQ support is an Intel 9XX chipset board. There
is also the SiI 3124 controller, which you probably can't buy (after a year). You don't need multi-processing for NCQ, but simple desktop apps don't benefit in any case. wrote in message ... I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II with NCQ Hard Drive from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS. BTW my processor is an Intel Pentium 4 at 2000 MHz My machine does not support hyperthreading. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
1st question:
Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not support NCQ serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support hyperthreading? Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and check out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one w/o NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it. Not sure if that's really significant in real world usage. Other questions: My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive. AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options: I'm not sure about now but 6-8 months ago almost all of the SATA drives basically used a bridge from an ATA controller so there was no speed advantage at all with SATA vs. ATA. And most of the SATA drives were more expensive as well. Things may have changed since then but I doubt you are going to notice a performance increase unless your current drive is pretty slow. Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive to. PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this configuration is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly into the motherboard? Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40 pin IDE cable to connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate still limited to 133 mb/sec even though the drive supports up to 150 mb/sec? Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck? I'd just get a Western Digital 250 gig 2500JB for around $80 after rebate. It's an ATA drive that's still in the top 20 speedwise and is faster than most SATA drives, including the Seagate you're considering. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Chuck U. Farley wrote:
1st question: Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not support NCQ serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support hyperthreading? Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and check out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one w/o NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it. Not sure if that's really significant in real world usage. Other questions: My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive. AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options: I'm not sure about now but 6-8 months ago almost all of the SATA drives basically used a bridge from an ATA controller so there was no speed advantage at all with SATA vs. ATA. _Almost_ all. Seagate never used a bridge chip. And he's looking at a Seagate drive. Not that it matters--the transfer rate is limited by the physical properties of the disks and heads, not by the interface. And most of the SATA drives were more expensive as well. Things may have changed since then but I doubt you are going to notice a performance increase unless your current drive is pretty slow. Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive to. PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this configuration is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly into the motherboard? Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40 pin IDE cable to connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate still limited to 133 mb/sec even though the drive supports up to 150 mb/sec? Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck? I'd just get a Western Digital 250 gig 2500JB for around $80 after rebate. It's an ATA drive that's still in the top 20 speedwise and is faster than most SATA drives, including the Seagate you're considering. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Willard" wrote in message news:dECrd.190044$R05.147503@attbi_s53dmbfan2@opto nline.net wrote:
I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II with NCQ Hard Drive from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS. BTW my processor is an Intel Pentium 4 at 2000 MHz My machine does not support hyperthreading. 1st question: Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not support NCQ serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support hyperthreading? Other questions: My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive. AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options: Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive to. PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this configuration is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly into the motherboard? Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40 pin IDE cable to connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate still limited to 133 mb/sec even though the drive supports up to 150 mb/sec? Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck? Thanks. There is no relationship between HT and NCQ. No? Care to explain? Must be a reason why he specifically asked about this, right? Totally independent. Either way of connecting a SATA HD will work OK. And neither PCI nor PATA will bottleneck any existing SATA HD, since they all have STRs of 80 MB/s. Ever noticed how you can connect more than a single drive to a MoBo? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Chuck U. Farley" wrote in message
1st question: Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not support NCQ serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support hyperthreading? Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and check out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one w/o NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it. What drive was that? 'I/O's per second' is basically latency related: rpm, seek time etc. No point in comparison unless of the same or similar type. Not sure if that's really significant in real world usage. Other questions: My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive. AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options: I'm not sure about now but 6-8 months ago almost all of the SATA drives basically used a bridge from an ATA controller so there was no speed advantage at all with SATA vs. ATA. Speed difference (STR) is purely defined by rpm and data density. Has nothing to do with parallel or serial. And most of the SATA drives were more expensive as well. Things may have changed since then but I doubt you are going to notice a performance increase unless your current drive is pretty slow. Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive to. PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this configuration is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly into the motherboard? Probably even worse if the 'directly into the motherboard' chipset is not limited by PCI at all. But then only for applications that need more bandwidth than PCI provides such as RAID and pure sequential access. Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40 pin IDE cable to connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate still limited to 133 mb/sec Yup. Not that that is of any significance. even though the drive supports up to 150 mb/sec? Of course. Not that any drive 'supports up to 150 MB/s'. Nor '133 MB/s'. Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck? I'd just get a Western Digital 250 gig 2500JB for around $80 after rebate. It's an ATA drive that's still in the top 20 speedwise and is faster than most SATA drives, including the Seagate you're considering. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and
check out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one w/o NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it. What drive was that? 'I/O's per second' is basically latency related: rpm, seek time etc. No point in comparison unless of the same or similar type. Guess you didn't go to the site. It compares about 80 different drives of similar as well as dissimilar types. The High End Drive Mark is: A capture of VeriTest's Content Creation Winstone 2001 suite. Applications include Adobe Photoshop v5.5, Adobe Premiere v5.1, Macromedia Director v8.0, Macromedia Dreamweaver v3.0, Netscape Navigator v4.73, and Sonic Foundry Sound Forge v4.5. Unlike typical productivity applications, high-end audio- and video- editing programs are run in a more serial and less multitasked manner. The High-End DriveMark includes significantly more sequential transfers and write (as opposed to read) operations. There's more he http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Currently both ATA-100/133 and SATA-150 transfer at the same speed.
In real world terms, 55-65MBs. Currently ATA drives are better price per GBs of storage. So if you are planning on keeping your current motherboard for awhile, go for the ATA. The SATA will have the advantage as SATA will be replacing ATA as the main storage controller built into motherboards (ATA will fade away) In the future SATA will be increase interface speeds from the current 150 to 300, then to 600 But you will need to buy the new hard drive and interface (or motherboard) to take advantage of the speed increase And SATA drives should be much cheaper (per GB of storage) by then. wrote in message ... I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II with NCQ Hard Drive from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS. BTW my processor is an Intel Pentium 4 at 2000 MHz My machine does not support hyperthreading. 1st question: Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not support NCQ serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support hyperthreading? Other questions: My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive. AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options: Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive to. PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this configuration is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly into the motherboard? Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40 pin IDE cable to connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate still limited to 133 mb/sec even though the drive supports up to 150 mb/sec? Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck? Thanks. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Multi-boot Windows XP without special software | Timothy Daniels | Storage (alternative) | 24 | September 23rd 08 08:52 AM |
Win XP doesn't like a second hard drive! | N9WOS | General | 9 | January 6th 05 01:10 AM |
Upgrade Report [Hardware Tips: Get the Right Hard Drive - 05/11/2004] | Ablang | General | 0 | May 16th 04 03:17 AM |
Hitachi 7K250 any good? | Jerry | Storage (alternative) | 20 | December 19th 03 12:47 AM |
FDISK, HDD #s, don't know how to install two HDDs. | sunslight | Storage (alternative) | 14 | October 29th 03 07:56 PM |