Questions about SATA Hard Drive w NCQ

"Chuck U. Farley" wrote in message
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.

Guess I didn't. Guess you didn't read what I said.

It compares about 80 different drives of similar as well as dissimilar types.

Right, and you said 'one'. So I wanted to know which 'one'.
If there is more than 'one', then I wanted to know which were the 'ones'
that are otherwise completely 'similar' except for NCQ, that you compared.
Comparing a slower drive with NCQ with a faster drive without it is not on
if you want to see an effect- better or worse- of NCQ. NCQ usually only
comes into effect if you saturate the IO and a queue actually builds.

So, which one (or two)?

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

You can only compare drives that have the exact same Access Time and
STR when comparing drives for the effect of with and without NCQ.

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.

Guess I didn't. Guess you didn't read what I said.

It's hard to communicate with someone who wants to be spoon-fed information
and can't/won't follow a link.


It compares about 80 different drives of similar as well as dissimilar
types.

Right, and you said 'one'. So I wanted to know which 'one'.

I guess you have trouble following a thread as well as a link. From the op's
post:

"I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II
with NCQ Hard Drive
from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS.

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?"

So the "one" would be a Seagate ST3160827AS, which, guess what, comes in NCP
_and_ non-NCQ varieties. So they're comparing exactly the drive the op
inquired about, in both versions, which answers his 1st question.

If there is more than 'one', then I wanted to know which were the 'ones'
that are otherwise completely 'similar' except for NCQ, that you compared.

I didn't compare 'em, storagereview.com did. Of course you would have
discovered that if you had went to the site.

Comparing a slower drive with NCQ with a faster drive without it is not on
if you want to see an effect- better or worse- of NCQ. NCQ usually only
comes into effect if you saturate the IO and a queue actually builds.

So, which one (or two)?



Oh wait, if you can't follow a weblink, you'll never figure out a MID.

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

You can only compare drives that have the exact same Access Time and
STR when comparing drives for the effect of with and without NCQ.

Well, guess what? That's exactly what the _comparison_ I linked to did. Of
course, going to link and figuring it out yourself would've been asking too
much now, wouldn't it?

"Chuck U. Farley" wrote in message
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.

Guess I didn't. Guess you didn't read what I said.

It's hard to communicate with someone who wants to be spoon-fed information
and can't/won't follow a link.

Not at all.
Just point out to him/her that your answer was in response to the part that you
snipped instead of the part that you didn't snip but appeared to answer to.

I read the question and interpreted the answer in the context of that question,
not the part that you snipped. I don't go back to a previous post because some
dyslexic idiot finds it necessary to conserve a hundred bytes or so and then finds
it necessary to answer exactly to the part that he snipped while ignoring the part
that he answers to. What idiot snips the part that his answer is supposed to cover?


It compares about 80 different drives of similar as well as dissimilar types.

Right, and you said 'one'. So I wanted to know which 'one'.

I guess you have trouble following a thread as well as a link. From the op's
post:

"I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II
with NCQ Hard Drive from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS.

So what, you removed that from your context and answered to the OP's question instead
where he also moved away in a general direction.
When snipping your supposed scope and then answering to a question whith a more general
scope your answer gets interpreted toward that general scope, not the one you snipped.


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?"

So the "one" would be a Seagate ST3160827AS, which,

guess what,

You have no idea how accurate that wording might actually be, don't you.

comes in NCP _and_ non-NCQ varieties.

Uhuh, and where exactly does it say that?
When you look at it carefully, indications are that it is the exact
same drive, once tested with and once tested without NCQ active.

So they're comparing exactly the drive the op
inquired about, in both versions,

That's what *you* make of it, based on "*guess* what".

which answers his 1st question.

Right, that wasn't so hard, now was it.
If you had said that the first time we wouldn't have had this confusion.
But then that is exactly what you were hoping for, isn't it.


If there is more than 'one', then I wanted to know which were the 'ones'
that are otherwise completely 'similar' except for NCQ, that you compared.

I didn't compare 'em, storagereview.com did. Of course you would have
discovered that if you had went to the site.

I don't usually go on wild goose chases, submitting myself to the SR
Spybots, having to stay online because the stupid page won't save, having
to go back to the older messages in the thread to find out what selection to
make because poster was too lazy to present an *accurate* link and then
go looking for things supposedly there but that in all likely hood aren't.
Well, excuse me for not biting.


Comparing a slower drive with NCQ with a faster drive without it is not
on if you want to see an effect- better or worse- of NCQ. NCQ usually
only comes into effect if you saturate the IO and a queue actually builds.

So, which one (or two)?



Oh wait, if you can't follow a weblink, you'll never figure out a MID.

Thanks for making no bones about it that you are just a stupid Troll.
And in OE that is an email address, oh clueless troll, which you know
very well since you are using it yourself.


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

You can only compare drives that have the exact same Access Time and
STR when comparing drives for the effect of with and without NCQ.

Well, guess what? That's exactly what the _comparison_ I linked to did.

And anyone that clicks that link can see that is a blatant lie, in several respects.

Of course, going to link and figuring it out yourself would've been

asking too much

You finally got it.

now, wouldn't it?

"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.

In the desktop suites. It's almost the complete reverse for the server suite.

Not sure if that's really significant in real world usage.

Well, that depends on what one's 'real world usage' (Desktop, Server,
business, pleasure) type really is, isn't it. And benchmark suites -as
opposed to the simple benchmarks- are supposed to mimic the real word.
Also, 'significant' can be a stretchable notion depending on what your goal is.


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.

Which obviously has nothing to do with that "bridge from an ATA controller".
If the (Serial) ATA controller has a bridge then obviously it doesn't
matter at all whether the drive has one too or that it is native SATA.

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.

Of course, going to link and figuring it out yourself would've been

asking too much

You finally got it.

Nah, I didn't get it until I checked your posting history in here, now I
know better than to respond to you.

See ya!

"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. Not sure if that's
really significant in real world usage.

There are two drives with NCQ reviewed, the MaxLine III and the Barracuda
7200.7. The MaxLine performs better with NCQ in all tests. The Barracuda
performs better without NCQ, but only for desktop benchmarks.

Of course the IDE controller and driver will affect NCQ performance too, and
nobody has benchmarked the various SATA2 controllers properly.