Mixing SATA and IDE Hard Drives

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hi all,

I have an ASUS P4C800 MB with an Intel 3.2g processor. When I upgraded my
system I had a 120g Western Digital HD (7200RPM) so I did not put in a new
drive.

I'm doing more and more video editing and would like to add a second hard
drive. I know I can buy the exact same drive and add it. But could I get a
120g SATA drive and have the two of them co-exist?

Thanks for any help here

 

[ANON]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

yes - mix and match to your hearts content. I have 2 PATA and 2 SATA drives
in the same MB/CPUS system.

"GKenney" <wgkenney@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3tCdnXfeloasfBTd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I have an ASUS P4C800 MB with an Intel 3.2g processor. When I upgraded my
> system I had a 120g Western Digital HD (7200RPM) so I did not put in a new
> drive.
>
> I'm doing more and more video editing and would like to add a second hard
> drive. I know I can buy the exact same drive and add it. But could I get
a
> 120g SATA drive and have the two of them co-exist?
>
> Thanks for any help here
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

HAve fun. I have 2 pata 80gigs & 1 sata 160 gig living in harmony
without using extra drivers.

I find that the pata drives are faster and use one for my C
partition. This is likely due to the interface on the sata drives
being less efficient than pata's at this time. By the way all my
drives are WD's. You should get similar results with maxtor.

WD raptors are another breed unfortunately budget constraints are
stopping me from trying them out.

Locust

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:38:47 -0400, "GKenney" <wgkenney@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I have an ASUS P4C800 MB with an Intel 3.2g processor. When I upgraded my
>system I had a 120g Western Digital HD (7200RPM) so I did not put in a new
>drive.
>
>I'm doing more and more video editing and would like to add a second hard
>drive. I know I can buy the exact same drive and add it. But could I get a
>120g SATA drive and have the two of them co-exist?
>
>Thanks for any help here
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I thought SATA Drives were faster?

I sure hope they are on my A7N8X-E. Been waiting a long time to get a pair...

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:50:42 GMT, end user <locust@gregarious.com> wrote:

>HAve fun. I have 2 pata 80gigs & 1 sata 160 gig living in harmony
>without using extra drivers.
>
>I find that the pata drives are faster and use one for my C
>partition. This is likely due to the interface on the sata drives
>being less efficient than pata's at this time. By the way all my
>drives are WD's. You should get similar results with maxtor.
>
>WD raptors are another breed unfortunately budget constraints are
>stopping me from trying them out.
>
>Locust
>
>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:38:47 -0400, "GKenney" <wgkenney@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I have an ASUS P4C800 MB with an Intel 3.2g processor. When I upgraded my
>>system I had a 120g Western Digital HD (7200RPM) so I did not put in a new
>>drive.
>>
>>I'm doing more and more video editing and would like to add a second hard
>>drive. I know I can buy the exact same drive and add it. But could I get a
>>120g SATA drive and have the two of them co-exist?
>>
>>Thanks for any help here
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

LooseNut wrote:

> I thought SATA Drives were faster?

I am finding that the peak read/write speeds for
SATA drives are virtually always a lot lower than
the burst mode speeds for PATA drives.

However, the average read/write speeds are significantly
higher with SATA. When you are copying a few gigs of
data from one SATA drive to another the job takes about
16% to 18% less time than doing the same thing with a couple
of PATA drives. If the two PATA drives are on the same
controller they do even worse.

Not that I have a huge statistically valid data sampling yet,
either. I've only used exactly 16 SATA drives so far.


>
> I sure hope they are on my A7N8X-E. Been waiting a long time to get a pair...
>
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:50:42 GMT, end user <locust@gregarious.com> wrote:
>
>
>>HAve fun. I have 2 pata 80gigs & 1 sata 160 gig living in harmony
>>without using extra drivers.
>>
>>I find that the pata drives are faster and use one for my C
>>partition. This is likely due to the interface on the sata drives
>>being less efficient than pata's at this time. By the way all my
>>drives are WD's. You should get similar results with maxtor.
>>
>>WD raptors are another breed unfortunately budget constraints are
>>stopping me from trying them out.
>>
>>Locust
>>
>>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:38:47 -0400, "GKenney" <wgkenney@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I have an ASUS P4C800 MB with an Intel 3.2g processor. When I upgraded my
>>>system I had a 120g Western Digital HD (7200RPM) so I did not put in a new
>>>drive.
>>>
>>>I'm doing more and more video editing and would like to add a second hard
>>>drive. I know I can buy the exact same drive and add it. But could I get a
>>>120g SATA drive and have the two of them co-exist?
>>>
>>>Thanks for any help here
>>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

LooseNut wrote:
> I thought SATA Drives were faster?

Why? OK so SATA has a theoretical peak transfer speed of 150MB/s, but then
your PCI bus can't do that, and most drives can;t get more than a few
microseconds of data across at peak speeds anyway. P-ATA is up to 133MB/s

What limits the speed of a drive is the rotational latency, and track seek
times. I have never come across a drive that is limited by the interface it
uses, it is ALWAYS limited by the mechanics.

> I sure hope they are on my A7N8X-E. Been waiting a long time to get a
> pair...


If you were to get, for example, a WD2500JD and a WD2500JB, they would
perform about the same, since they are the same drive. The difference is
the interface. In the JD there is actually a PATA to SATA bridge chip -
somewhere for additional latency and throughput to be reduced. However,
this pales into insignificance when compared to the latency and data
transfer speeds from the platter to the drive controller.

My WD360GD (Raptor) is damn fast, but thats 'cos it's a 10K RPM drive. My
WD2500JD is pretty good in terms of sustained read rates - comparable to the
Raptor, in fact. It can't touch it on writing or seeking though, the Raptor
is in a different league (hence the price).

Benchmark Results (WD360GD / WD2500JD) using HDTach 2.70:
Seek: 8.8 / 13.8ms
Peak Transfer (useless measure): 99.7 / 75.4 MB/s
Max Transfer: 60.2 / 60.4
Average Transfer: 50.5 / 50.6
Min Transfer: 36.2 / 34.6

So as you can see, pretty much the same for read speeds.

However, the write speeds for the WD2500JD are almost exactly half the read
speeds. For the Raptor, they're about the same as the read speeds, as far
as I can tell (it's my OS drive, so couldn't test writing as it had to be
unpartitioned)

And in terms of dealing with lots of seeking (accessing directories with
thousands of files, deleting directories with hundreds of files, and just
general usage) the Raptor wipes the floor with the WD2500JD.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6m69o$dp5rn$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de...
> LooseNut wrote:
> > I thought SATA Drives were faster?
>
> Why? OK so SATA has a theoretical peak transfer speed of 150MB/s, but
then
> your PCI bus can't do that, and most drives can;t get more than a few
> microseconds of data across at peak speeds anyway. P-ATA is up to 133MB/s
>
> What limits the speed of a drive is the rotational latency, and track seek
> times. I have never come across a drive that is limited by the interface
it
> uses, it is ALWAYS limited by the mechanics.
>
> > I sure hope they are on my A7N8X-E. Been waiting a long time to get a
> > pair...
>
>
> If you were to get, for example, a WD2500JD and a WD2500JB, they would
> perform about the same, since they are the same drive. The difference is
> the interface. In the JD there is actually a PATA to SATA bridge chip -
> somewhere for additional latency and throughput to be reduced. However,
> this pales into insignificance when compared to the latency and data
> transfer speeds from the platter to the drive controller.
>
> My WD360GD (Raptor) is damn fast, but thats 'cos it's a 10K RPM drive. My
> WD2500JD is pretty good in terms of sustained read rates - comparable to
the
> Raptor, in fact. It can't touch it on writing or seeking though, the
Raptor
> is in a different league (hence the price).
>
> Benchmark Results (WD360GD / WD2500JD) using HDTach 2.70:
> Seek: 8.8 / 13.8ms
> Peak Transfer (useless measure): 99.7 / 75.4 MB/s
> Max Transfer: 60.2 / 60.4
> Average Transfer: 50.5 / 50.6
> Min Transfer: 36.2 / 34.6
>
> So as you can see, pretty much the same for read speeds.
>
> However, the write speeds for the WD2500JD are almost exactly half the
read
> speeds. For the Raptor, they're about the same as the read speeds, as far
> as I can tell (it's my OS drive, so couldn't test writing as it had to be
> unpartitioned)
>
> And in terms of dealing with lots of seeking (accessing directories with
> thousands of files, deleting directories with hundreds of files, and just
> general usage) the Raptor wipes the floor with the WD2500JD.
>
> Ben
> --

And is not the 72Gb Raptor meant to be an improvement on the 36Gb one - not
just double the capacity.
--
Doug Ramage

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Doug Ramage wrote:
> And is not the 72Gb Raptor meant to be an improvement on the 36Gb one -
> not just double the capacity.

Yes, it has Tagged Command Queuing and an optimised firmware. As I
understand it, it is pretty much an improvement all round. Benchmarks are
somewhat better if I recall.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6mb80$doel6$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Doug Ramage wrote:
> > And is not the 72Gb Raptor meant to be an improvement on the 36Gb one -
> > not just double the capacity.
>
> Yes, it has Tagged Command Queuing and an optimised firmware. As I
> understand it, it is pretty much an improvement all round. Benchmarks are
> somewhat better if I recall.
>
> Ben
> --

Thought so. Pity about the price.
--
Doug Ramage

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

This has turned out to be an interesting discussion.

If I might add my results between a a pata and sata drive are as
follows (this using sisoft sandra 2004 & visual observations)

- Sustained tranfer rate for a WD 80 gig 8meg cache PATA drive 43
meg/sec
-Sustained tranfer rate for a WD 160 gig 8meg cache SATA drive 34
meg/sec

The C (booting partiton) was tried on both drives, the PATA drive
would boot up faster, visibly.

As far as I know the WD SATA drive uses a pata to sata bridge and not
a native sata interface thus reducing the transfer speed due to
overhead.

my 2 cents

Locust



On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:20:18 +0100, "Doug Ramage"
<namxat666@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c6mb80$doel6$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Doug Ramage wrote:
>> > And is not the 72Gb Raptor meant to be an improvement on the 36Gb one -
>> > not just double the capacity.
>>
>> Yes, it has Tagged Command Queuing and an optimised firmware. As I
>> understand it, it is pretty much an improvement all round. Benchmarks are
>> somewhat better if I recall.
>>
>> Ben
>> --
>
>Thought so. Pity about the price.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

end user wrote:
> This has turned out to be an interesting discussion.
>
> If I might add my results between a a pata and sata drive are as
> follows (this using sisoft sandra 2004 & visual observations)
>
> - Sustained tranfer rate for a WD 80 gig 8meg cache PATA drive 43
> meg/sec
> -Sustained tranfer rate for a WD 160 gig 8meg cache SATA drive 34
> meg/sec
>
> The C (booting partiton) was tried on both drives, the PATA drive
> would boot up faster, visibly.
>
> As far as I know the WD SATA drive uses a pata to sata bridge and not
> a native sata interface thus reducing the transfer speed due to
> overhead.

Not usually as much as that though.

What SATA controller and drivers are you using? Do you have a P4P800 - that
would be either the ICH5 or the Promise, right?

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:06:20 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>end user wrote:
>> This has turned out to be an interesting discussion.
>>
>> If I might add my results between a a pata and sata drive are as
>> follows (this using sisoft sandra 2004 & visual observations)
>>
>> - Sustained tranfer rate for a WD 80 gig 8meg cache PATA drive 43
>> meg/sec
>> -Sustained tranfer rate for a WD 160 gig 8meg cache SATA drive 34
>> meg/sec
>>
>> The C (booting partiton) was tried on both drives, the PATA drive
>> would boot up faster, visibly.
>>
>> As far as I know the WD SATA drive uses a pata to sata bridge and not
>> a native sata interface thus reducing the transfer speed due to
>> overhead.
>
>Not usually as much as that though.
>
>What SATA controller and drivers are you using? Do you have a P4P800 - that
>would be either the ICH5 or the Promise, right?
>
>Ben


It's a p4p800dlx with (I believe) a ICH5 (definately not a promise
controller).

I expected the sata would be faster and was disappointed but it makes
a very good storage drive. No drivers were loaded for the sata drive.
The C partition was copied over to the sata drive using Drive image
2002 and no driver were required.

Locust

 

[Chris]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I did find one oddity with an SATA drive. I have a WinTV-Go for video
capturing. It works great capturing to a PATA drive but I get horizontal
lines when using the SATA. It's a WD 7200 rpm 80 GB but I don't think the
drive is the problem. It'd the video signal that gets corrupted, not the
data to the drive. This probably won't apply to newer capture cards but if
you do have problems, try capturing to the PATA drive.

Chris
"GKenney" <wgkenney@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3tCdnXfeloasfBTd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I have an ASUS P4C800 MB with an Intel 3.2g processor. When I upgraded my
> system I had a 120g Western Digital HD (7200RPM) so I did not put in a new
> drive.
>
> I'm doing more and more video editing and would like to add a second hard
> drive. I know I can buy the exact same drive and add it. But could I get
a
> 120g SATA drive and have the two of them co-exist?
>
> Thanks for any help here
>
>

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:36:33 GMT, "Chris" <spadfly@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>I did find one oddity with an SATA drive. I have a WinTV-Go for video
>capturing. It works great capturing to a PATA drive but I get horizontal
>lines when using the SATA. It's a WD 7200 rpm 80 GB but I don't think the
>drive is the problem. It'd the video signal that gets corrupted, not the
>data to the drive. This probably won't apply to newer capture cards but if
>you do have problems, try capturing to the PATA drive.
>
>Chris


LOL. Sounds like more buggy sleeper digital rights technology oozing
into things.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

end user wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:06:20 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> end user wrote:
>>> As far as I know the WD SATA drive uses a pata to sata bridge and not
>>> a native sata interface thus reducing the transfer speed due to
>>> overhead.
>>
>> Not usually as much as that though.
>>
>> What SATA controller and drivers are you using? Do you have a P4P800 -
>> that would be either the ICH5 or the Promise, right?
>
> It's a p4p800dlx with (I believe) a ICH5 (definately not a promise
> controller).

OK, so there's an ICH5R in the chipset and an additional VIA VIA6410 ATA
controller.

The ICH5R is the only one to support SATA.

> I expected the sata would be faster and was disappointed but it makes
> a very good storage drive. No drivers were loaded for the sata drive.
> The C partition was copied over to the sata drive using Drive image
> 2002 and no driver were required.


There will be a driver required for the Intel ATA/SATA controller, but
Windows may have it already.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...