Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (
More info?)
_P_e_ar_lALegend wrote:
>> Is it worth going for a S-ATA drive to replace (or augment) them with, as
>>> I have seen mixed opinions on the merits of S-ATA so far. Also, if I do
>>> go for S-ATA, will I need to muck around with BIOS/firmware/whatever?
>>>
>>> Thanks all, I appreciate any advice you have to offer.
>>
>> SATA is just a different interface, there are no noticeable performance
>> gains due to the controller itself.
>
> That is not true. It improve performance a lot. Best sustained transfer,
> best throughput, a feel of improved performance in every day use.
Sustained transfer is not affected. (Name a drive that can approach a
sustained transfer of 100MB/s, let alone exceed 133MB/s). 70MB/s is the
absolute max I've seen from a drive.
In fact, you'd be hard pushed to consistently get a noticeable difference in
seek, transfer or any other benchmark. Unless you're only testing the cache
to host performance, which is rarely a limiting factor. Average cache size
on a quality new drive is 8 MB, with a transfer rate of around 60MB/s you
can empty it in 133ms, assuming that it's completely full with the data you
require. Hardly noticeable.
Take a 20Mb file, assume half of the cache holds that particular file, and
the drive has the following specs:
Sustained drive transfer speed of 50MB/s
Cache of 8Meg
I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume 100% efficiency of the
interface, i.e., 133MB/s and 150MB/s transfer between drive and host, and
then a faster link to the memory controller. That accesses from the cache
are instantaneous, and that the cached and data read from the platter are
not simultaneous. I will overlap the 10ms seek with the 100ms or so of
emptying the cache.
Total transfer time for an ATA133 drive:
(20-4)/50 + 4/133 = 0.32 + 0.03 = 0.35s
Total transfer time for a SATA150 drive:
(20-4)/50 + 4/150 = 0.32 + 0.026667 ~ 0.347s
Wow, thats an improvement of a MASSIVE 1%.
If anybody can be bothered to consider the fact that it can start caching
the file whilst it is emptying the cache then go ahead and do the calcs
again. It'll be a similar number.
> If u say so, u really never worked with SATA.
Pah. I have 2 SATA drives. A WD360GD and a WD2500JD
> The difference between IDE and SATA is like the difference between the day
> and the night.
The difference between ATA133 and SATA150 is not that great. The protocols
are mostly the same.
> BTW, the interface is totally different and improved. Not
> just simple drive swapping between interface ::-(((
The physical interface is of course, quite different. It uses a
differential pair, not a parallel cable. (In this respect it is like USB or
IEEE1394) Connectors and cabling are therefore much different (and better).
Other advantages include support for TCQ (like SCSI) which may help
performance under high loading as it allows the drive to re-order queued
commands to reap best performance (essentially it can reduce the seeks
required, amongst other things).
Also, the commands have error checking, something that normal ATA doesn't
have. Both of course have error checking on the data.
Thats all I can think of off the top of my head.
Perhaps you should try reading, rather than making up what you say.
Oh, and if you're comparing a 3 year old ATA drive with a brand new SATA
drive, then you're not really playing fair, are you?
Check a benchmark for say, a WD2500JB and a WD2500JD. They are the same
drive, one has ATA100 or 133, the other is SATA. I think you'll find that
the SATA has a marginally reduced performance due to the bridge required -
not noticeable without accurate benchmarks though (and thats tricky on a
drive). Native SATA drives should not differ noticeably, but I wouldn't
expect them to be slower than ATA.
The difference between night and day? Do you perchance live close to a
pole, such that you have ~6 months of light and 6 of dark (very similar
night and days)?
I look forward to your comments.
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...
an.2004.06.28.20.03.35.521459@leg.it...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram