Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

u320 vs. SATA

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
May 30, 2005 4:23:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

How do the two compare?

More about : u320 sata

May 30, 2005 4:28:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Chris wrote:
> How do the two compare?
What about SATA vs. u160?
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
May 30, 2005 10:45:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

At what? For what? Price? RAID? What type of RAID? Random access
(transaction server), office productivity, gaming, video editing, swap file,
.... ?

For $400 or $500 US you can get a 76 GB 10,000 RPM Ultra 320 SCSI drive. On
the other hand you can get a 250 GB 7200 RPM SATA drive for ~ $140 US. AND
the SATA drive will have a HIGHER sustained sequential data throughput than
the Ultra 320 drive. Some tasks are better served by what SCSI offers, some
tasks don't justify the sharply higher investment. Some tasks don't benefit
at all.

It isn't just the drives that are different. The motherboard must also be
able to handle the increased bandwidth (64 bit 66 mHz PCI slots or 8X PCI
Express slots for the controllers.)

Why don't you post your parameters for the comparison (along with the
complete question in the body of the post)?

However, if you want a short answer - if you have to ask the question, you
shouldn't even consider Ultra320 SCSI.

Phil Weldon

"Chris" <cwallace@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:1117430616.44040235e959b6ac18c59e7fdd549773@teranews...
> How do the two compare?
Related resources
May 30, 2005 1:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Thanks for the responses. Here's more about my situation:

I have an adaptec u160 card I bought off Ebay, and two HP 4.2 GB SCSI-II
hard drives to run with it. They seem to be running well in my old PIII
box, but I wonder if I should move them over to my new system or not?
I am building a gaming box with an Opteron processor, and the
motherboard (MSI Master2-FAR) has onboard SATA connections.

I wonder:

1) What will the performance be like if I connect my ATA-133 drive to
SATA or the SCSI card? Of course, I'll need an adapter to do either.
Is either one worth it?

2) Would I do well to boot my OS off of the SCSI -II hard drives and use
the ATA drive for storage? (It'll likely be a dual-boot w/WinXP and I'll
try a Gentoo phase-1 install)

3) Would it be better to use the SCSI for pagefile? Right now, I have
RAID0 across the scsi drives for the pagefile (only)

4) Will I see a big benefit by investing in an SATA or SATA-II drive?


I wonder
Phil Weldon wrote:
> At what? For what? Price? RAID? What type of RAID? Random access
> (transaction server), office productivity, gaming, video editing, swap file,
> ... ?
>
> For $400 or $500 US you can get a 76 GB 10,000 RPM Ultra 320 SCSI drive. On
> the other hand you can get a 250 GB 7200 RPM SATA drive for ~ $140 US. AND
> the SATA drive will have a HIGHER sustained sequential data throughput than
> the Ultra 320 drive. Some tasks are better served by what SCSI offers, some
> tasks don't justify the sharply higher investment. Some tasks don't benefit
> at all.
>
> It isn't just the drives that are different. The motherboard must also be
> able to handle the increased bandwidth (64 bit 66 mHz PCI slots or 8X PCI
> Express slots for the controllers.)
>
> Why don't you post your parameters for the comparison (along with the
> complete question in the body of the post)?
>
> However, if you want a short answer - if you have to ask the question, you
> shouldn't even consider Ultra320 SCSI.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Chris" <cwallace@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:1117430616.44040235e959b6ac18c59e7fdd549773@teranews...
>
>>How do the two compare?
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
May 30, 2005 7:54:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Chris wrote:
> How do the two compare?

It's just about impossible to do an apples-to-apples comparison as the
drives for each are configured for different markets (unlike SATA/PATA
comparisons where you can get near-identical drives). SCSI drives are
generally optimised (through firmware and construction) for server
situations, whereas SATA drives are usually optimised for desktop
situations. Not to mention 10K being "normal" for SCSI and 15K being readily
available. This is why a Raptor can beat a 10K SCSI drive in
game-level-loading benches but still get thrashed in server benches. If
you're talking about non-TCQ SATA drives vs a SCSI drive, then the SCSI
drive has a good advantage in multi-user situations due to this reordering
ability. In terms of raw protocol features alone, U320 and SATA2 (assuming
you have a TCQ-enabled drive) are quite similar, the main difference being
that you can have a large number of SCSI devices on a single channel vs
SATA2 having only one drive per channel. Not really important unless you're
trying to cram an large number of drives into a single machine. U160 and
SATA1 is slightly more in SCSI's favor due to SATA1's lack of TCQ. In terms
of channel bandwidth, both have way more bandwidth than is needed nowadays
unless you're playing with 4+ drive SCSI RAID on a single channel.

Finally, SCSI drives always (as far as I have seen) come with a 5 year
warrantee. SATA drives are usually 3 year, though you do get 1 year and 5
year drives sometimes as well.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
May 31, 2005 1:09:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Chris wrote:
> Thanks for the responses. Here's more about my situation:
>
> I have an adaptec u160 card I bought off Ebay, and two HP 4.2 GB
> SCSI-II hard drives to run with it. They seem to be running well in
> my old PIII box, but I wonder if I should move them over to my new
> system or not? I am building a gaming box with an Opteron processor, and
> the
> motherboard (MSI Master2-FAR) has onboard SATA connections.
>
> I wonder:
>
> 1) What will the performance be like if I connect my ATA-133 drive to
> SATA or the SCSI card? Of course, I'll need an adapter to do either.
> Is either one worth it?

No. With an adapter, you get the lowest common denominator of both channels.
In this case, the u160 adapter protocol is better in every way than the
ATA-133 protocol so you won't loose too much. However, every adapter has a
performance hit, and running an IDE drive off a SCSI->IDE converter would
almost always be worse than running an IDE drive on it's native interface.

[...]
> 4) Will I see a big benefit by investing in an SATA or SATA-II drive?

This links up to the previous questions, and the answer is most definately
yes. The SCSI drives you have are pretty ancient, and would get destroyed
(in desktop use) by any new 7200RPM IDE drive.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
May 31, 2005 1:09:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Thank you again for the response. In my situation, would you choose to
get a SATA hard disk over buying a u-160 or u-320 hard disk?

Michael Brown wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the responses. Here's more about my situation:
>>
>>I have an adaptec u160 card I bought off Ebay, and two HP 4.2 GB
>>SCSI-II hard drives to run with it. They seem to be running well in
>>my old PIII box, but I wonder if I should move them over to my new
>>system or not? I am building a gaming box with an Opteron processor, and
>>the
>>motherboard (MSI Master2-FAR) has onboard SATA connections.
>>
>>I wonder:
>>
>>1) What will the performance be like if I connect my ATA-133 drive to
>>SATA or the SCSI card? Of course, I'll need an adapter to do either.
>>Is either one worth it?
>
>
> No. With an adapter, you get the lowest common denominator of both channels.
> In this case, the u160 adapter protocol is better in every way than the
> ATA-133 protocol so you won't loose too much. However, every adapter has a
> performance hit, and running an IDE drive off a SCSI->IDE converter would
> almost always be worse than running an IDE drive on it's native interface.
>
> [...]
>
>>4) Will I see a big benefit by investing in an SATA or SATA-II drive?
>
>
> This links up to the previous questions, and the answer is most definately
> yes. The SCSI drives you have are pretty ancient, and would get destroyed
> (in desktop use) by any new 7200RPM IDE drive.
>
> [...]
>
May 31, 2005 1:09:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

(repost)

Thank you again for the response. In my situation, would you choose to
get a SATA hard disk over buying a u-160 or u-320 hard disk?

A new SATA drive will run me over $100, but I can get a small u160 drive
for well under that.

> Michael Brown wrote:
>
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the responses. Here's more about my situation:
>>>
>>> I have an adaptec u160 card I bought off Ebay, and two HP 4.2 GB
>>> SCSI-II hard drives to run with it. They seem to be running well in
>>> my old PIII box, but I wonder if I should move them over to my new
>>> system or not? I am building a gaming box with an Opteron processor,
>>> and the
>>> motherboard (MSI Master2-FAR) has onboard SATA connections.
>>>
>>> I wonder:
>>>
>>> 1) What will the performance be like if I connect my ATA-133 drive to
>>> SATA or the SCSI card? Of course, I'll need an adapter to do either.
>>> Is either one worth it?
>>
>>
>>
>> No. With an adapter, you get the lowest common denominator of both
>> channels. In this case, the u160 adapter protocol is better in every
>> way than the ATA-133 protocol so you won't loose too much. However,
>> every adapter has a performance hit, and running an IDE drive off a
>> SCSI->IDE converter would almost always be worse than running an IDE
>> drive on it's native interface.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 4) Will I see a big benefit by investing in an SATA or SATA-II drive?
>>
>>
>>
>> This links up to the previous questions, and the answer is most
>> definately yes. The SCSI drives you have are pretty ancient, and would
>> get destroyed (in desktop use) by any new 7200RPM IDE drive.
>>
>> [...]
>>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
May 31, 2005 1:09:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

First, how much storage do you expect to use?
Second, a large capacity drive ATA drive will outperform any small SCSI
drive for gaming or productivity.
Third, for the use you describe, an SATA drive will perfrom no better than
an ATA drive.
Fourth, you can get a new 80 GB 7200 RPM 8 MB cache ATA 100 hard drive for
$30. That will be a much better match for your new system than any small
SCSI drives.

Phil Weldon

"Chris" <cwallace@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:1117495742.bb4691904700796d961ff08fc899a542@teranews...
> Thank you again for the response. In my situation, would you choose to
> get a SATA hard disk over buying a u-160 or u-320 hard disk?
>
> Michael Brown wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for the responses. Here's more about my situation:
>>>
>>>I have an adaptec u160 card I bought off Ebay, and two HP 4.2 GB
>>>SCSI-II hard drives to run with it. They seem to be running well in
>>>my old PIII box, but I wonder if I should move them over to my new
>>>system or not? I am building a gaming box with an Opteron processor, and
>>>the
>>>motherboard (MSI Master2-FAR) has onboard SATA connections.
>>>
>>>I wonder:
>>>
>>>1) What will the performance be like if I connect my ATA-133 drive to
>>>SATA or the SCSI card? Of course, I'll need an adapter to do either.
>>>Is either one worth it?
>>
>>
>> No. With an adapter, you get the lowest common denominator of both
>> channels. In this case, the u160 adapter protocol is better in every way
>> than the ATA-133 protocol so you won't loose too much. However, every
>> adapter has a performance hit, and running an IDE drive off a SCSI->IDE
>> converter would almost always be worse than running an IDE drive on it's
>> native interface.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>4) Will I see a big benefit by investing in an SATA or SATA-II drive?
>>
>>
>> This links up to the previous questions, and the answer is most
>> definately yes. The SCSI drives you have are pretty ancient, and would
>> get destroyed (in desktop use) by any new 7200RPM IDE drive.
>>
>> [...]
>>
May 31, 2005 1:09:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

First, I don't need much storage. 10 GB of high-speed storage is plenty
for me, and the rest (really, 10GB is a large estimate) I'm happy to put
elsewhere.

Second point taken

Third point>really? why are people wasting any time & money pursuing
SATA if its no better than PATA?

Fourth, My current "main" hard drive is ATA 133, so no upgrade then.

Would a u160 hard drive really just slow down my system?

Phil Weldon wrote:
> First, how much storage do you expect to use?
> Second, a large capacity drive ATA drive will outperform any small SCSI
> drive for gaming or productivity.
> Third, for the use you describe, an SATA drive will perfrom no better than
> an ATA drive.
> Fourth, you can get a new 80 GB 7200 RPM 8 MB cache ATA 100 hard drive for
> $30. That will be a much better match for your new system than any small
> SCSI drives.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Chris" <cwallace@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:1117495742.bb4691904700796d961ff08fc899a542@teranews...
>
>>Thank you again for the response. In my situation, would you choose to
>>get a SATA hard disk over buying a u-160 or u-320 hard disk?
>>
>>Michael Brown wrote:
>>
>>>Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks for the responses. Here's more about my situation:
>>>>
>>>>I have an adaptec u160 card I bought off Ebay, and two HP 4.2 GB
>>>>SCSI-II hard drives to run with it. They seem to be running well in
>>>>my old PIII box, but I wonder if I should move them over to my new
>>>>system or not? I am building a gaming box with an Opteron processor, and
>>>>the
>>>>motherboard (MSI Master2-FAR) has onboard SATA connections.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder:
>>>>
>>>>1) What will the performance be like if I connect my ATA-133 drive to
>>>>SATA or the SCSI card? Of course, I'll need an adapter to do either.
>>>>Is either one worth it?
>>>
>>>
>>>No. With an adapter, you get the lowest common denominator of both
>>>channels. In this case, the u160 adapter protocol is better in every way
>>>than the ATA-133 protocol so you won't loose too much. However, every
>>>adapter has a performance hit, and running an IDE drive off a SCSI->IDE
>>>converter would almost always be worse than running an IDE drive on it's
>>>native interface.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>4) Will I see a big benefit by investing in an SATA or SATA-II drive?
>>>
>>>
>>>This links up to the previous questions, and the answer is most
>>>definately yes. The SCSI drives you have are pretty ancient, and would
>>>get destroyed (in desktop use) by any new 7200RPM IDE drive.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
May 31, 2005 1:09:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

#1. Some games take a couple of GB storage each. Some games can use a LOT
of memory, moving to 1 GByte from 512 MBytes can show a noticable
improvement. Most high end display adaptors have at least 256 MBytes on
board, some 512 MBytes. A balanced system for the CURRENT highest
requirement games would probably include 1 GByte memory and a 2 GByte swap
file. And you just can't get around the fact that sequential sustained
transfer rates to and from a hard drive is directly related to the size of
the drive.

#3. Why SATA? Well, for a one or two 200 GByte hard drive system, ATA
100/PCI bandwidth is not saturated. SATA and PCI Express are for future
needs (say next year.) There are quite a few changes afoot - dual core/chip
CPUs, PCI Express, new motherboard specifications....

#4. How large is your present ATA hard drive? Unless it is really large,
sustained data through-put will be the same for ATA66 as ATA 100, as ATA133.

Finally, a small Ultra 160 hard drive won't slow your system down if you use
it to back up data or your OS installation. If you use it for the operating
system installation or for a swap file, or for game installation, it will
slow your system down. Depending on how you use your system, the slow down
may not be much, but it will be slower, especially on benchmarks.

The key here, for your uses, is data recording density. The more bits per
inch along a hard drive track, the more data that passes under the R/W head
per second. That is why a large capacity 7200 rpm ATA hard drive can have a
higher sustained data transfer rate than a small 10,000 rpm or even 15,000
rpm drive.

How much did you pay for the SCSI stuff you bought? Unless you are getting
10 GByte SCSI drives for $5 US, this whole discussion seems sort of silly;
and even if your ARE getting the drives that cheap, they STILL aren't worth
it. Do you really want to use old, second-hand hard drives in a RAID 0
setup, where losing one drive loses ALL the data in the array? Recovery
from disk corruption on a RAID 0 array is much more difficult than on single
drives.

Perhaps it would help if you did some research on the Internet; for example,
check the maximum sustained data transfer rates of hard drives of various
capacities that use various interfaces, check the bandwidth for PCI 33, PCI
66, PCI 66 X 64 bit, PCI express X2, PCI express X8, check the bandwidth and
performance of various SCSI standards.

Phil Weldon

"Chris" <cwallace@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:1117504347.9c66a4739c3313baf00200715d7fe953@teranews...
> First, I don't need much storage. 10 GB of high-speed storage is plenty
> for me, and the rest (really, 10GB is a large estimate) I'm happy to put
> elsewhere.
>
> Second point taken
>
> Third point>really? why are people wasting any time & money pursuing SATA
> if its no better than PATA?
>
> Fourth, My current "main" hard drive is ATA 133, so no upgrade then.
>
> Would a u160 hard drive really just slow down my system?
>
> Phil Weldon wrote:
>> First, how much storage do you expect to use?
>> Second, a large capacity drive ATA drive will outperform any small SCSI
>> drive for gaming or productivity.
>> Third, for the use you describe, an SATA drive will perfrom no better
>> than an ATA drive.
>> Fourth, you can get a new 80 GB 7200 RPM 8 MB cache ATA 100 hard drive
>> for $30. That will be a much better match for your new system than any
>> small SCSI drives.
>>
>> Phil Weldon
>>
>> "Chris" <cwallace@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:1117495742.bb4691904700796d961ff08fc899a542@teranews...
>>
>>>Thank you again for the response. In my situation, would you choose to
>>>get a SATA hard disk over buying a u-160 or u-320 hard disk?
>>>
>>>Michael Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the responses. Here's more about my situation:
>>>>>
>>>>>I have an adaptec u160 card I bought off Ebay, and two HP 4.2 GB
>>>>>SCSI-II hard drives to run with it. They seem to be running well in
>>>>>my old PIII box, but I wonder if I should move them over to my new
>>>>>system or not? I am building a gaming box with an Opteron processor,
>>>>>and the
>>>>>motherboard (MSI Master2-FAR) has onboard SATA connections.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) What will the performance be like if I connect my ATA-133 drive to
>>>>>SATA or the SCSI card? Of course, I'll need an adapter to do either.
>>>>>Is either one worth it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No. With an adapter, you get the lowest common denominator of both
>>>>channels. In this case, the u160 adapter protocol is better in every way
>>>>than the ATA-133 protocol so you won't loose too much. However, every
>>>>adapter has a performance hit, and running an IDE drive off a SCSI->IDE
>>>>converter would almost always be worse than running an IDE drive on it's
>>>>native interface.
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>4) Will I see a big benefit by investing in an SATA or SATA-II drive?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This links up to the previous questions, and the answer is most
>>>>definately yes. The SCSI drives you have are pretty ancient, and would
>>>>get destroyed (in desktop use) by any new 7200RPM IDE drive.
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>
>>
!