Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is SATA II worth it? (3GB/sec)

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 19, 2006 7:03:05 PM

IS Sata II worth it?.................if it is....I'm currently building a rig (max
price. 1500$)

THe Hard Drive I have in mind is

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E1682...

I was wondering if there's anything that can beat it in price/performance
ratio.....................

of course, the parts are from newegg...

Cooler Master Cavalier 3 silver case
Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 SATAII NCQ 160 GB HD
LG L1980Q 19" LCD
Asus A8N-E Sock. 939 nforce ultra
eVGA geforce 7900 GT CO 256 MB GDDR3 PCIe (500mhz/1500mhz)
Enermax Noisetaker 485 W PSU
Logitech X-530 5.1 speakers
Corsair XMS 2GB DDR SDRAM
AMD Athlon64 3700+ SanDiego CPU



Thanks

If you find a HD thats better, suggestions are gladly received XD

More about : sata worth 3gb sec

Related resources
June 20, 2006 1:24:26 PM

With the exception of the Raptors, all the fastest drives are now SATAII. It's not that the bus makes it any faster, it's that it has the potential to go faster. Since SATAII is becoming the standard pretty rapidly, there won't be too many more SATA150 drives.

Go with SATAII unless you want Raptors. The drives themselves are faster, although they still won't saturate the SATAII bus (unless you have around 10 SATAII drives in RAID 0 on a PCIe raid card or something).
June 20, 2006 2:11:26 PM

Quote:
With the exception of the Raptors, all the fastest drives are now SATAII. It's not that the bus makes it any faster, it's that it has the potential to go faster. Since SATAII is becoming the standard pretty rapidly, there won't be too many more SATA150 drives.


That's not entirely true, under most benchmarks there was only a 1mb separation between the two. Saying there wond be many Sata150 drive is pretty much ture if you like Moores Law, but just to say to be heard is dumb. SataII has little gaine over Sata150, thus since the norm is Sata150 and the market is currently standard with them, to say they will be gone soon is not ture.
June 20, 2006 2:52:49 PM

Currently traditional hard drives can't use the full bandwidth of SATA II, so I would say "no" SATA II isn't worth it at the moment but that may change soon. Devices like Gigabytes I-RAM and potentially hybrid hard drives (haven't seen any benchmarks yet so can't be sure) can use the full bandwidth of SATA II since they pull most or all data from RAM which is capable of much faster speeds. Keeping this in mind, traditional hard drives can get a small performance boost by SATA II because some info is stored in the cache. Since SATA II is backward compatible with SATA I, I would go for a SATA II drive even if it were only a few dollars more.

Also FYI there is plans to release a new SATA standard, called SATA-IO, that has a 6GB/s bandwidth. Info can be found here. If hybrid hard drives perform well I think it is a safe bet that this will become the new standard.
June 20, 2006 7:57:23 PM

Here is my 2-cents on this question...

I say, if you want 160 GB of Hard Drive space, go for two 80's and put them in RAID0 instead. Even if they are SATA-2's. RAID0 "doubles" the write speed to the drive(s). The price difference between SATA-II and SATA-I is so minimal, you might as well go with SATA-II for nothing more then the extra headroom of bandwidth so you minimize the Hard Drive bottle neck as much as possible.

I also agree that SATA-2 over SATA-1 is not that big of an advantage unless you go with the faster Hard Drives, 10000+ RPM. I dont know if the 15000 Raptors are SATA-2 but, if they are, they could probably use the SATA-2 bandwidth difference. That is why RAID0 is so nice, you write to what the operating system thinks is one drive when really you are writting to two+ drives that switch off writting the parts of the file, Drive A, B, A, B, etc... So, especially in the case of the Raptor's, you get much faster Read and Write when compared to just reading/writting from one drive.

I personally run 2 Seagate 80GBs, SATA 150's in RAID0 and in the hard drive benchmarks I get nearly double score as one SATA drive. Even in real-world use, I get considerably faster speed compared to when I was running the 2 seperate. When installing stuff from CD's I rarely see an improvement from non-RAID setup because of the slower read/write bandwidth on CDs but from DVD's, I get MUCH faster performance when running RAID0. An example would be installing Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, when in normal, Non-raid, it takes easily more then 15 minutes to install but in RAID0, it takes around 11-12 minutes, not completely double but it is noticeable.

I too will be building a new computer, using the AM2 AMD socket and Nvidia's nForce 500 series chipset. I will definitly be getting multiple Hard Drives (if I dont use my current ones) for RAID0 setup again. The true joy of RAID0 is it is capable of using more then 2 drives to give even further performance gains, if your chipset supports it that is. The nForce 500 series has 6 SATA-II slots so, not sure about this 100%, you could setup 6 hard drives all using one RAID0 setup and get near 6 times the performance as one drive in SATA-II (or SATA-I if you stay with the older, cheaper drives). With how cheap the 80GB drives are, $55-ish on NewEgg, I am considering getting 3 or 4 of them and running it all on one RAID0 setup.

The one down side of RAID0 is it has no reduntancy, like all the other RAID's so if one drive goes down, say good bye to the current RAID0 drive setup. If you get 4 or 6, or any other even amount of drives higher then 4, you can setup RAID0+1 where you get the best of both worlds, 0 being the speed boost and 1 being the reduntancy. Normally though, its rare for drives to fail that often so unless this is a server with truely VITAL data, dont bother with RAID1.

Anyway... yea... I didnt mean to write that much lol.. my bad... Just my opinion
June 20, 2006 8:15:21 PM

I need all the info i can get :) 
June 21, 2006 5:07:54 PM

I agree that RAID 0 is the way to go for people who don't want to sacrifice performance or capacity. If there is worry about data loss I personally recommend Norton Ghost. If on the occasion a drive were to fail, Ghost would be able to bring a system back up to its previous state in a reasonable amount of time.

Also to Wierdo's previous post, as far as I have seen the Raptors have 10,000 RPM drive speeds, between 8 -16 MB of cache, and all use SATA 150. The 15,000 RPM drives have only been released on the SCSI platform to my knowledge
June 21, 2006 5:58:25 PM

You're mostly right about the 15k drives. Not only are they on SCSI, but also on a new interface called SAS, or Serial Attached SCSI. So, it's SCSI in one form or another. No, SAS drives will not work on a SATA interface.

RAID 0 is nice, but it's not for everyone. RAID 1 is almost as fast in read transfer rates, and is about the same as a single drive in write transfer rates. And if you want both speed and parity, go with RAID 0+1 or RAID 10. Striping mirrored arrays or mirroring striped arrays, depending on the one you choose. At least 4 drives are needed for both, though, so that's a downside. They're expensive and require a lot of drive bays.
!