Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

10K drives for SATA2???

Tags:
  • Hard Drives
  • SATA
  • Cache
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
Share
May 30, 2006 3:05:38 PM

Ok So I have seen the wonderful 10K drives with 16 cache for SATA but I have not found any that are SATA2... Does anyone know if they are out there yet?

More about : 10k drives sata2

May 30, 2006 9:42:04 PM

---CUT AND PASTED STAT II RANT---

To make things completely clear the existance of SATA I and SATA II drives is a complete and utter myth.

All SATA drive are of the same "SATA generation" and comply with the same SATA II specification. There are many optional features in this specification including the choice between a 1.5 Gbps (AKA SATA 150 Mbps) and 3.0 Gbps (AKA SATA 300 Mbps) interface.

Interfance choice in no way implies the presense of other optional features, nor does it have ANY EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE.

For this reason the SATA Standards board flat out forbids the use of the SATA II product label!

There is an entire thread already devoted to dispelling this myth.

CONCLUSION:

Someday in the far future, when hard drive are over 66% faster we will need 3.0 Gbps transfer rates.

UNTIL THAT FAR AWAY DATE:

When evaluating a hard drive COMPLETELY DISREGARD the interface speed or any incorrect SATA I/II labeling.

Do not waste money on a 3.0 capable addon-card if you motherboard already has enoug 1.5 ports.

---
Doesn't matter at all since there is nothing suboptimal about the current 10 RPM drives, see above.
May 31, 2006 12:46:25 PM

So can I run a SATA drive 10K on a motherboard set up claiming SATA2 with no issues?
Related resources
May 31, 2006 1:54:33 PM

Yes
May 31, 2006 2:23:16 PM

Quote:
CONCLUSION:

Someday in the far future, when hard drive are over 66% faster we will need 3.0 Gbps transfer rates.


I never cease to be amazed of how many people miss this entirely.

Quote:
Doesn't matter at all since there is nothing suboptimal about the current 10 RPM drives, see above.


I wouldn't go that far. I'd like to see a 10K drive that can read and write at the equivalent of a mythical 10,000K drive. That would be optimal enough for me, assuming they are cheap, small and don't generate much heat. I may as well request a Raptor-X window and stealth finish while I'm at it.
May 31, 2006 2:55:44 PM

Thank you all for the help.
May 31, 2006 2:59:06 PM

Quote:
---CUT AND PASTED STAT II RANT---

To make things completely clear the existance of SATA I and SATA II drives is a complete and utter myth.

All SATA drive are of the same "SATA generation" and comply with the same SATA II specification. There are many optional features in this specification including the choice between a 1.5 Gbps (AKA SATA 150 Mbps) and 3.0 Gbps (AKA SATA 300 Mbps) interface.

Interfance choice in no way implies the presense of other optional features, nor does it have ANY EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE.

For this reason the SATA Standards board flat out forbids the use of the SATA II product label!

There is an entire thread already devoted to dispelling this myth.

CONCLUSION:

Someday in the far future, when hard drive are over 66% faster we will need 3.0 Gbps transfer rates.

UNTIL THAT FAR AWAY DATE:

When evaluating a hard drive COMPLETELY DISREGARD the interface speed or any incorrect SATA I/II labeling.

Do not waste money on a 3.0 capable addon-card if you motherboard already has enoug 1.5 ports.

---
Doesn't matter at all since there is nothing suboptimal about the current 10 RPM drives, see above.


Aww crap... you got CodeSmith ranting and raving on THIS again... *yawn*
May 31, 2006 3:01:40 PM

Quote:

I wouldn't go that far. I'd like to see a 10K drive that can read and write at the equivalent of a mythical 10,000K drive. That would be optimal enough for me, assuming they are cheap, small and don't generate much heat. I may as well request a Raptor-X window and stealth finish while I'm at it.

Sure. You want fries with that? :lol: 

I wonder what changes nand-flash hybrid drives will bring along.
May 31, 2006 3:39:56 PM

Quote:
Sure. You want fries with that? :lol: 


As long as I don't have to send in an MIR to get them.
June 1, 2006 2:33:22 AM

The warning label was clearly visible, you have only yourself to blame.
!