Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SATA drives worth getting for video editing?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 10:20:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm getting a new motherboard soon which will support SATA. My question is,
is it worth getting one of these faster drives for video editing purposes?
Is it a little faster than a 7200 ata drive or a lot faster? I'm going to
get a second drive to use strickly for video projects and wanted to know if
SATA is worth the extra expense or just get a second 7200 drive?

Cheers
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 1:50:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

The drives are really not faster at all. The current crop of EIDT ATA
drives can't even reach their maximum capable speeds. However, if you're
getting an SATA equipped motherboard, there may only be 1 ATA100 EIDE
connector. (The new crop of Intel 915/925 chipset based boards have 4 SATA
ports and ! EIDE ATA100 port that supports 2 devices.

You may be forced to get at lest one SATA drive if you are going to get into
video editing. It's a bad idea to use your system drive for video editing -
even if it has multiple partitions. And Putting 2 ATA100 (or similar EIDE)
drives onto the lone EIDE connector will not be good either. It's best to
have a completely separate hard drive on it's own channel for best video
capture/edit performance.

I have a 925X Express based motherboard with 1 EIDE channel and 4 SATA
ports. I have 2 x 250GB SATA drives on SATA ports 1 and 2, a Plextor SATA
12x DVD burner on SATA port 3, and a TDK DVD/CDRW drive on the lone EIDE
channel. This works well for me, with both video capture/edit, and disc to
disc copying.

What system parts are you getting (motherboard, etc)?

"atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:SCbmd.10959$14.4505@read1.cgocable.net...
| I'm getting a new motherboard soon which will support SATA. My question
is,
| is it worth getting one of these faster drives for video editing purposes?
| Is it a little faster than a 7200 ata drive or a lot faster? I'm going to
| get a second drive to use strickly for video projects and wanted to know
if
| SATA is worth the extra expense or just get a second 7200 drive?
|
| Cheers
|
|
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 1:07:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm getting an Asus K8V-X board: this one
http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=K8V-X&langs=01
I have one ata133 drive and was thinking of getting a second one for video
editing when I learned about the SATA drives. Is that the same as Raid? This
new technology confuses me.

atarileaf

Guess Who <chippe01@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5sSdnSaSxt135QTcRVn-rA@giganews.com...
> The drives are really not faster at all. The current crop of EIDT ATA
> drives can't even reach their maximum capable speeds. However, if you're
> getting an SATA equipped motherboard, there may only be 1 ATA100 EIDE
> connector. (The new crop of Intel 915/925 chipset based boards have 4 SATA
> ports and ! EIDE ATA100 port that supports 2 devices.
>
> You may be forced to get at lest one SATA drive if you are going to get
into
> video editing. It's a bad idea to use your system drive for video
editing -
> even if it has multiple partitions. And Putting 2 ATA100 (or similar EIDE)
> drives onto the lone EIDE connector will not be good either. It's best to
> have a completely separate hard drive on it's own channel for best video
> capture/edit performance.
>
> I have a 925X Express based motherboard with 1 EIDE channel and 4 SATA
> ports. I have 2 x 250GB SATA drives on SATA ports 1 and 2, a Plextor SATA
> 12x DVD burner on SATA port 3, and a TDK DVD/CDRW drive on the lone EIDE
> channel. This works well for me, with both video capture/edit, and disc
to
> disc copying.
>
> What system parts are you getting (motherboard, etc)?
>
> "atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:SCbmd.10959$14.4505@read1.cgocable.net...
> | I'm getting a new motherboard soon which will support SATA. My question
> is,
> | is it worth getting one of these faster drives for video editing
purposes?
> | Is it a little faster than a 7200 ata drive or a lot faster? I'm going
to
> | get a second drive to use strickly for video projects and wanted to know
> if
> | SATA is worth the extra expense or just get a second 7200 drive?
> |
> | Cheers
> |
> |
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 3:09:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>> "atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>> news:SCbmd.10959$14.4505@read1.cgocable.net...
>> | I'm getting a new motherboard soon which will support SATA. My question
>> is,
>> | is it worth getting one of these faster drives for video editing
> purposes?
>> | Is it a little faster than a 7200 ata drive or a lot faster? I'm going
> to
>> | get a second drive to use strickly for video projects and wanted to
>> know
>> if
>> | SATA is worth the extra expense or just get a second 7200 drive?
>> |
>> | Cheers
>> |

> Guess Who <chippe01@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5sSdnSaSxt135QTcRVn-rA@giganews.com...
>> The drives are really not faster at all. The current crop of EIDT ATA
>> drives can't even reach their maximum capable speeds. However, if you're
>> getting an SATA equipped motherboard, there may only be 1 ATA100 EIDE
>> connector. (The new crop of Intel 915/925 chipset based boards have 4
>> SATA
>> ports and ! EIDE ATA100 port that supports 2 devices.
>>
>> You may be forced to get at lest one SATA drive if you are going to get
> into
>> video editing. It's a bad idea to use your system drive for video
> editing -
>> even if it has multiple partitions. And Putting 2 ATA100 (or similar
>> EIDE)
>> drives onto the lone EIDE connector will not be good either. It's best to
>> have a completely separate hard drive on it's own channel for best video
>> capture/edit performance.
>>
>> I have a 925X Express based motherboard with 1 EIDE channel and 4 SATA
>> ports. I have 2 x 250GB SATA drives on SATA ports 1 and 2, a Plextor
>> SATA
>> 12x DVD burner on SATA port 3, and a TDK DVD/CDRW drive on the lone EIDE
>> channel. This works well for me, with both video capture/edit, and disc
> to
>> disc copying.
>>
>> What system parts are you getting (motherboard, etc)?
>>

"atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:JComd.11046$14.1360@read1.cgocable.net...
> I'm getting an Asus K8V-X board: this one
> http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=K8V-X&langs=01
> I have one ata133 drive and was thinking of getting a second one for video
> editing when I learned about the SATA drives. Is that the same as Raid?
> This
> new technology confuses me.
>
> atarileaf
>

The Serial-ATA drive format costs the manufacturers less to
implement and has a potential for faster throughput, but as has
been said, that potential goes unused at present. The advantage
for the manufacturers means lower prices or more for the same
price, and that it is very likely to be supported in the future.

SATA drives are most often implemented with RAID capable
drivers, but it's not the same as RAID. RAID is a schema to
use two or more drives sharing your data as you save and retrieve
it. There are basically two approaches used (with some variations)
one way makes the data flow more efficient and therefor faster, and
the other makes your data more secure by keeping a copy on each
drive.

I use two SATA 10,000 RPM "Raptor" drives, not in RAID, and
they make my system noticeably faster than it was with my old 7200
RPM drives. I capture with a Hardware MPEG Encoder so drive
performance won't effect capture as it could (producing dropped
frames) with most other capture methods. The few "I frame only"
captures I've made, have encountered no problems.

Are they worth it? I got mine form Newegg, a new 74Gig and a
refurbished 36Gig, on sale and they have been well worth it to me.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 5:00:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I thought most digital camcorders use firewire to transfer to and from the
pc? What is a hardware mpeg encoder and how does it differ from a firewire
card?

Basically, from the little I learned, I want to transfer my mini-dv home
movies to my pc via firewire, edit them, add some nifty transitions, music,
titles, etc, then shoot it back out to the camera, again via firewire and
from there make copies on video tape. Do I need a hardware mpeg encoder to
do this? Will my videos drop frames, suffer from artifacting, or other bad
quality problems the way I'm going to attempt to do it?

Cheers
atarileaf

Ken Maltby <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6pCdnd66u8TP3wfcRVn-rw@giganews.com...
> >> "atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:SCbmd.10959$14.4505@read1.cgocable.net...
> >> | I'm getting a new motherboard soon which will support SATA. My
question
> >> is,
> >> | is it worth getting one of these faster drives for video editing
> > purposes?
> >> | Is it a little faster than a 7200 ata drive or a lot faster? I'm
going
> > to
> >> | get a second drive to use strickly for video projects and wanted to
> >> know
> >> if
> >> | SATA is worth the extra expense or just get a second 7200 drive?
> >> |
> >> | Cheers
> >> |
>
> > Guess Who <chippe01@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:5sSdnSaSxt135QTcRVn-rA@giganews.com...
> >> The drives are really not faster at all. The current crop of EIDT ATA
> >> drives can't even reach their maximum capable speeds. However, if
you're
> >> getting an SATA equipped motherboard, there may only be 1 ATA100 EIDE
> >> connector. (The new crop of Intel 915/925 chipset based boards have 4
> >> SATA
> >> ports and ! EIDE ATA100 port that supports 2 devices.
> >>
> >> You may be forced to get at lest one SATA drive if you are going to get
> > into
> >> video editing. It's a bad idea to use your system drive for video
> > editing -
> >> even if it has multiple partitions. And Putting 2 ATA100 (or similar
> >> EIDE)
> >> drives onto the lone EIDE connector will not be good either. It's best
to
> >> have a completely separate hard drive on it's own channel for best
video
> >> capture/edit performance.
> >>
> >> I have a 925X Express based motherboard with 1 EIDE channel and 4 SATA
> >> ports. I have 2 x 250GB SATA drives on SATA ports 1 and 2, a Plextor
> >> SATA
> >> 12x DVD burner on SATA port 3, and a TDK DVD/CDRW drive on the lone
EIDE
> >> channel. This works well for me, with both video capture/edit, and
disc
> > to
> >> disc copying.
> >>
> >> What system parts are you getting (motherboard, etc)?
> >>
>
> "atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:JComd.11046$14.1360@read1.cgocable.net...
> > I'm getting an Asus K8V-X board: this one
> > http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=K8V-X&langs=01
> > I have one ata133 drive and was thinking of getting a second one for
video
> > editing when I learned about the SATA drives. Is that the same as Raid?
> > This
> > new technology confuses me.
> >
> > atarileaf
> >
>
> The Serial-ATA drive format costs the manufacturers less to
> implement and has a potential for faster throughput, but as has
> been said, that potential goes unused at present. The advantage
> for the manufacturers means lower prices or more for the same
> price, and that it is very likely to be supported in the future.
>
> SATA drives are most often implemented with RAID capable
> drivers, but it's not the same as RAID. RAID is a schema to
> use two or more drives sharing your data as you save and retrieve
> it. There are basically two approaches used (with some variations)
> one way makes the data flow more efficient and therefor faster, and
> the other makes your data more secure by keeping a copy on each
> drive.
>
> I use two SATA 10,000 RPM "Raptor" drives, not in RAID, and
> they make my system noticeably faster than it was with my old 7200
> RPM drives. I capture with a Hardware MPEG Encoder so drive
> performance won't effect capture as it could (producing dropped
> frames) with most other capture methods. The few "I frame only"
> captures I've made, have encountered no problems.
>
> Are they worth it? I got mine form Newegg, a new 74Gig and a
> refurbished 36Gig, on sale and they have been well worth it to me.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 5:26:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b1smd.11053$14.74@read1.cgocable.net...
>I thought most digital camcorders use firewire to transfer to and from the
> pc? What is a hardware mpeg encoder and how does it differ from a firewire
> card?
>
> Basically, from the little I learned, I want to transfer my mini-dv home
> movies to my pc via firewire, edit them, add some nifty transitions,
> music,
> titles, etc, then shoot it back out to the camera, again via firewire and
> from there make copies on video tape. Do I need a hardware mpeg encoder to
> do this? Will my videos drop frames, suffer from artifacting, or other bad
> quality problems the way I'm going to attempt to do it?
>
> Cheers
> atarileaf
>

The hardware MPEG encoder I use is for Analog Video, the
standard stuff that is fed to a normal TV. MPEG is a highly
compressed digital video (DV) format, used for TV distribution
and to make DVDs. Your camcorder's DV is typically only
compressed 5:1 and maintains the complete data for each
individual frame. MPEG compression is "Lossey" in that much
unneeded data is rejected and not used, this allows much smaller
files and/or data streams.

If your source is Digital you want to capture it in a Digital way.
The "Firewire" port is the most practical way to import Digital
Video. You won't need any MPEG encoder until and unless you
are actually Authoring a DVD or preparing content for distribution.

Since your camera has already digitized and compressed your
video, it is unlikely that you could be hurt by the performance
of a healthy drive, of any speed. There are a number of factors
that can cause the problems you mention, (Just read a month's
worth of posts on this NG), and drive performance can be a
cause, but there is no way to predict any individuals results.
There are a number of posters that have great success with the
approach you describe.

Your posts didn't mention that you were just doing Digital
captures from a camcorder, until this last one.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 7:21:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks Ken. I guess I should have mentioned that in the beginning. Sorry
about the confusion.
Thanks again for your help.
Atarileaf

Ken Maltby <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5dqdnfqSW4Xe_wfcRVn-qQ@giganews.com...
>
> "atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:b1smd.11053$14.74@read1.cgocable.net...
> >I thought most digital camcorders use firewire to transfer to and from
the
> > pc? What is a hardware mpeg encoder and how does it differ from a
firewire
> > card?
> >
> > Basically, from the little I learned, I want to transfer my mini-dv home
> > movies to my pc via firewire, edit them, add some nifty transitions,
> > music,
> > titles, etc, then shoot it back out to the camera, again via firewire
and
> > from there make copies on video tape. Do I need a hardware mpeg encoder
to
> > do this? Will my videos drop frames, suffer from artifacting, or other
bad
> > quality problems the way I'm going to attempt to do it?
> >
> > Cheers
> > atarileaf
> >
>
> The hardware MPEG encoder I use is for Analog Video, the
> standard stuff that is fed to a normal TV. MPEG is a highly
> compressed digital video (DV) format, used for TV distribution
> and to make DVDs. Your camcorder's DV is typically only
> compressed 5:1 and maintains the complete data for each
> individual frame. MPEG compression is "Lossey" in that much
> unneeded data is rejected and not used, this allows much smaller
> files and/or data streams.
>
> If your source is Digital you want to capture it in a Digital way.
> The "Firewire" port is the most practical way to import Digital
> Video. You won't need any MPEG encoder until and unless you
> are actually Authoring a DVD or preparing content for distribution.
>
> Since your camera has already digitized and compressed your
> video, it is unlikely that you could be hurt by the performance
> of a healthy drive, of any speed. There are a number of factors
> that can cause the problems you mention, (Just read a month's
> worth of posts on this NG), and drive performance can be a
> cause, but there is no way to predict any individuals results.
> There are a number of posters that have great success with the
> approach you describe.
>
> Your posts didn't mention that you were just doing Digital
> captures from a camcorder, until this last one.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 7:42:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> I use two SATA 10,000 RPM "Raptor" drives, not in RAID, and
> they make my system noticeably faster than it was with my old 7200

Interesting. I use WD JB series EIDE drives and the benchmarks from
storagereview.com only show about a 10% increase in hd performance with the
Raptors. And since I know that users can't even perceive a 10% increase in
overall performance, I'm surprised you can tell with just a 10% increase in
hd performance alone. That's the main reason I haven't upgraded my drives.
Still debating on putting two of the Raptors in a RAID 0 config for the OS.
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 9:52:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6pCdnd66u8TP3wfcRVn-rw@giganews.com...

> SATA drives are most often implemented with RAID capable
> drivers, but it's not the same as RAID. RAID is a schema to
> use two or more drives sharing your data as you save and retrieve
> it. There are basically two approaches used (with some variations)
> one way makes the data flow more efficient and therefor faster, and
> the other makes your data more secure by keeping a copy on each
> drive.


Not sure what you mean here by 'not the same as RAID. RAID is raid. Once you
have more than one drive in a shared array.....There are many types of raid.
For video storage RAID 0 is the fastest, non redundant solution
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 11:32:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:b1smd.11053$14.74@read1.cgocable.net...
>I thought most digital camcorders use firewire to transfer to and from the
> pc? What is a hardware mpeg encoder and how does it differ from a firewire
> card?
>


Hardware encoder takes in a stream of video and performs MPEG compression on
the stream in real time.






> Basically, from the little I learned, I want to transfer my mini-dv home
> movies to my pc via firewire, edit them, add some nifty transitions,
> music,
> titles, etc, then shoot it back out to the camera, again via firewire and
> from there make copies on video tape. Do I need a hardware mpeg encoder to
> do this?

Deinfately NOT. If you are only going back to DV tape or VHS. There is no
MPEG in that solution necessary.


Will my videos drop frames, suffer from artifacting, or other bad
> quality problems the way I'm going to attempt to do it?

No.. they'll be fine. Just use a dedicated drive for DV. ALL current hard
drives can handle the DV data rate .




>
> Cheers
> atarileaf
>
> Ken Maltby <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:6pCdnd66u8TP3wfcRVn-rw@giganews.com...
>> >> "atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:SCbmd.10959$14.4505@read1.cgocable.net...
>> >> | I'm getting a new motherboard soon which will support SATA. My
> question
>> >> is,
>> >> | is it worth getting one of these faster drives for video editing
>> > purposes?
>> >> | Is it a little faster than a 7200 ata drive or a lot faster? I'm
> going
>> > to
>> >> | get a second drive to use strickly for video projects and wanted to
>> >> know
>> >> if
>> >> | SATA is worth the extra expense or just get a second 7200 drive?
>> >> |
>> >> | Cheers
>> >> |
>>
>> > Guess Who <chippe01@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:5sSdnSaSxt135QTcRVn-rA@giganews.com...
>> >> The drives are really not faster at all. The current crop of EIDT ATA
>> >> drives can't even reach their maximum capable speeds. However, if
> you're
>> >> getting an SATA equipped motherboard, there may only be 1 ATA100 EIDE
>> >> connector. (The new crop of Intel 915/925 chipset based boards have 4
>> >> SATA
>> >> ports and ! EIDE ATA100 port that supports 2 devices.
>> >>
>> >> You may be forced to get at lest one SATA drive if you are going to
>> >> get
>> > into
>> >> video editing. It's a bad idea to use your system drive for video
>> > editing -
>> >> even if it has multiple partitions. And Putting 2 ATA100 (or similar
>> >> EIDE)
>> >> drives onto the lone EIDE connector will not be good either. It's best
> to
>> >> have a completely separate hard drive on it's own channel for best
> video
>> >> capture/edit performance.
>> >>
>> >> I have a 925X Express based motherboard with 1 EIDE channel and 4 SATA
>> >> ports. I have 2 x 250GB SATA drives on SATA ports 1 and 2, a Plextor
>> >> SATA
>> >> 12x DVD burner on SATA port 3, and a TDK DVD/CDRW drive on the lone
> EIDE
>> >> channel. This works well for me, with both video capture/edit, and
> disc
>> > to
>> >> disc copying.
>> >>
>> >> What system parts are you getting (motherboard, etc)?
>> >>
>>
>> "atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>> news:JComd.11046$14.1360@read1.cgocable.net...
>> > I'm getting an Asus K8V-X board: this one
>> > http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=K8V-X&langs=01
>> > I have one ata133 drive and was thinking of getting a second one for
> video
>> > editing when I learned about the SATA drives. Is that the same as Raid?
>> > This
>> > new technology confuses me.
>> >
>> > atarileaf
>> >
>>
>> The Serial-ATA drive format costs the manufacturers less to
>> implement and has a potential for faster throughput, but as has
>> been said, that potential goes unused at present. The advantage
>> for the manufacturers means lower prices or more for the same
>> price, and that it is very likely to be supported in the future.
>>
>> SATA drives are most often implemented with RAID capable
>> drivers, but it's not the same as RAID. RAID is a schema to
>> use two or more drives sharing your data as you save and retrieve
>> it. There are basically two approaches used (with some variations)
>> one way makes the data flow more efficient and therefor faster, and
>> the other makes your data more secure by keeping a copy on each
>> drive.
>>
>> I use two SATA 10,000 RPM "Raptor" drives, not in RAID, and
>> they make my system noticeably faster than it was with my old 7200
>> RPM drives. I capture with a Hardware MPEG Encoder so drive
>> performance won't effect capture as it could (producing dropped
>> frames) with most other capture methods. The few "I frame only"
>> captures I've made, have encountered no problems.
>>
>> Are they worth it? I got mine form Newegg, a new 74Gig and a
>> refurbished 36Gig, on sale and they have been well worth it to me.
>>
>> Luck;
>> Ken
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 4:54:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark M" <mark@onworldsedge.com> wrote in message
news:euumd.17981$jE2.15667@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> I use two SATA 10,000 RPM "Raptor" drives, not in RAID, and
>> they make my system noticeably faster than it was with my old 7200
>
> Interesting. I use WD JB series EIDE drives and the benchmarks from
> storagereview.com only show about a 10% increase in hd performance with
> the
> Raptors. And since I know that users can't even perceive a 10% increase in
> overall performance, I'm surprised you can tell with just a 10% increase
> in
> hd performance alone. That's the main reason I haven't upgraded my drives.
> Still debating on putting two of the Raptors in a RAID 0 config for the
> OS.
>
>

I don't know how they came up with the 10% figure, or how
you "know that users can't even perceive a 10% increase in
overall performance" - but - things load noticeably faster and in
fact some slight pauses have disappeared, altogether. Now I
don't have any idea how much of an improvement there may
be in benchmarks, or if the ones you reference were comparing
the 10,000 rpm drives, but it was certainly perceivable when I
switched to these drives.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 6:32:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

SATA is just the next step in mass storage interconnection
technology progress. In the long run it is cheaper than parallel
ATA which in turn was cheaper than its predecessors. After
SATA there will likely be optical of some kind.

That SATA might be slightly faster/slower than current ATA
implementations is transient and incidental. In a few years,
everything will be SATA and ATA drives will be antiques.

This may be a consideration for those of us intending to use
hard drives as archival storage (in lieu of tape, optical disc,
etc.)
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 12:07:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> I don't know how they came up with the 10% figure, or how

Benchmark testing, specifically I/O ops per second, and the site is quite
unbiased.

> you "know that users can't even perceive a 10% increase in
> overall performance" - but - things load noticeably faster and in

Well known fact in performance and tuning technology.

> the 10,000 rpm drives, but it was certainly perceivable when I
> switched to these drives.

They were comparing your exact model drive with 70-80 other hd's from 5400
to 15k including EIDE, SATA and SCSI.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 1:11:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

All I know is that I can get a new 80 gig SATA drive for $100 Cdn so the
price is right, its a little faster and will have its own channel so
hopefully dropped frames will be a non-issue with this drive.
Cheers
atarileaf


Mark M <mark@onworldsedge.com> wrote in message
news:AUImd.32671$z3.10369@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > I don't know how they came up with the 10% figure, or how
>
> Benchmark testing, specifically I/O ops per second, and the site is quite
> unbiased.
>
> > you "know that users can't even perceive a 10% increase in
> > overall performance" - but - things load noticeably faster and in
>
> Well known fact in performance and tuning technology.
>
> > the 10,000 rpm drives, but it was certainly perceivable when I
> > switched to these drives.
>
> They were comparing your exact model drive with 70-80 other hd's from 5400
> to 15k including EIDE, SATA and SCSI.
>
>
>
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 4:49:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <_KSdnack4pI1ngbcRVn-2w@giganews.com>, kmaltby@sbcglobal.net
says...
>
> I don't know how they came up with the 10% figure, or how
> you "know that users can't even perceive a 10% increase in
> overall performance" - but - things load noticeably faster and in
> fact some slight pauses have disappeared, altogether. Now I
> don't have any idea how much of an improvement there may
> be in benchmarks, or if the ones you reference were comparing
> the 10,000 rpm drives, but it was certainly perceivable when I
> switched to these drives.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>

Your perceived gains depend on what you two guys upgraded from too.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 5:04:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:32:06 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>SATA is just the next step in mass storage interconnection
>technology progress. In the long run it is cheaper than parallel
>ATA which in turn was cheaper than its predecessors. After
>SATA there will likely be optical of some kind.
>
>That SATA might be slightly faster/slower than current ATA
>implementations is transient and incidental. In a few years,
>everything will be SATA and ATA drives will be antiques.
>
>This may be a consideration for those of us intending to use
>hard drives as archival storage (in lieu of tape, optical disc,
>etc.)

They are also a lot easier to install. No more wide ribbon cable to
crush & stretch through frame cutouts. Case airflow is also improved.

--
Owamanga!
November 18, 2004 1:54:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"atarileaf" <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote:

>I'm getting a new motherboard soon which will support SATA. My question is,
>is it worth getting one of these faster drives for video editing purposes?
>Is it a little faster than a 7200 ata drive or a lot faster? I'm going to
>get a second drive to use strickly for video projects and wanted to know if
>SATA is worth the extra expense or just get a second 7200 drive?
>
>Cheers
>

Go here http://storagereview.com/comparison.html and select WB99
Disk/Read Transfer Rate - Begin or - End from the dropdown list.
Disk/Write would be even better, but isn't offered. Pick a drive as
high up the list as your budget permits. The Seagate 200GB's are
reasonable choices, easily had at $100 without rebate, often at
Outpost for $70 after a rebate.
!