u320 vs. SATA

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

How do the two compare?
10 answers Last reply
More about u320 sata
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Chris wrote:
    > How do the two compare?
    What about SATA vs. u160?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
    >
    >
    >
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
    >
    > [...]
    >
  7. 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.
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
  8. 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.
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
  9. 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.
    >>>
    >>>[...]
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
  10. 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.
    >>>>
    >>>>[...]
    >>>>
    >>
    >>
Ask a new question

Read More

Overclocking SATA Hardware