Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

highend presler vs lowend conroe?

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • Systems
  • Product
Last response: in Systems
Share
July 25, 2006 7:19:16 AM

i'm considering building a rig for $1-1.2k. leaning towards an intel processor but am not sure whether to hop on the Conroe bandwaggon with an E6300/E6400 or go with Pentium D 940/950 for $180/$220 respectively. in either case i would probably go with a 965x/975x Asus mobo and 2gig of Corsair ram. for the video card i think a 7600GT or similar would do nicely. i do moderate gaming but more often use computationally intensive programs ie Matlab and SolidWorks and the like. any comments and suggestions are very appreciated (especially on the CPU and PSU).

to sum up:
CPU: E6300/E6400 or PD940/950.............~$200
Mobo: Asus 965X/975X............................~$250
RAM: Corsair XMS2 2GB DDR2 800............$160
VC: XFX 7600GT 256MB PCI-E x16.............$185
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII.....$100
PSU: Antec TPII 550W maybe....................$85
Case: Coolermaster Centurion...................$50
DVD: Samsung 18X DVD±R.......................$35
.....................................................total: ~$1065

More about : highend presler lowend conroe

July 25, 2006 8:13:02 AM

Even the lowest end Conroe, the E6300 at 1.83 GHz, outperforms Intel's fastest Pentium D, the Extreme Edition 3.73 GHz, in the majority of benchmarks. A pentium D at this point could only be recommended if the price of $183 is just too much for you to spend. An Athlon X2 3800 at $150 would be good money spent, but since you're looking for Conroe compatibility, I'd recommend either coughing up the money for Intel's E6300 or buying one of the cheap Pentium Ds (805, 820, 915, 920, 930) and living with the decreased, but still very good performance.

Even the Pentium 4 506 for $50, or the Celeron D 352/356 for $60-$70 are okay buys if you don't heavily use multithreaded apps. :wink:
Related resources
July 25, 2006 8:52:22 AM

Quote:
clearly you should go with the 6300

you're completely right: it is clear! sad that i didn't see it before. i can probably stretch my budget for the E6400 even ($225) though probably not for the E6600 ($316) with its larger L2 cache.

I guess i will probably wait a little longer for availability/price to stabilize as well as to figure out what mobo will be best for Conroe (suggestions/theories?).

Thanks, for the advice and quick responses. More comments are always appreciated (especially on mobo and psu). Thanks again!
July 25, 2006 10:02:39 AM

Quote:
you're completely right: it is clear! sad that i didn't see it before. i can probably stretch my budget for the E6400 even ($225) though probably not for the E6600 ($316) with its larger L2 cache.

I guess i will probably wait a little longer for availability/price to stabilize as well as to figure out what mobo will be best for Conroe (suggestions/theories?).

Thanks, for the advice and quick responses. More comments are always appreciated (especially on mobo and psu). Thanks again!


Wait, keep saving and go for the E6600. The extra cache should be very helpful down the road.

For the board, go for any of these 3:

Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3

Abit AB9 Pro

Asus P5B
July 25, 2006 11:33:12 AM

Quote:
i'm considering building a rig for $1-1.2k. leaning towards an intel processor but am not sure whether to hop on the Conroe bandwaggon with an E6300/E6400 or go with Pentium D 940/950 for $180/$220 respectively. in either case i would probably go with a 965x/975x Asus mobo and 2gig of Corsair ram. for the video card i think a 7600GT or similar would do nicely. i do moderate gaming but more often use computationally intensive programs ie Matlab and SolidWorks and the like. any comments and suggestions are very appreciated (especially on the CPU and PSU).

to sum up:
CPU: E6300/E6400 or PD940/950.............~$200
Mobo: Asus 965X/975X............................~$250
RAM: Corsair XMS2 2GB DDR2 800............$160
VC: XFX 7600GT 256MB PCI-E x16.............$185
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII.....$100
PSU: Antec TPII 550W maybe....................$85
Case: Coolermaster Centurion...................$50
DVD: Samsung 18X DVD±R.......................$35
.....................................................total: ~$1065


Stay way from the E6300 and E6400 as the X2 AMD's provide about the same speed. For the price of the CPU and mobo you would be better off buying a X2 5000+ and a $145 AM2 mobo. Heres a equal Asus mobo in the AM2 design.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
Newegg should have the X2 5000+ shortly and it truly take the E6600 to beat the X2 5000+. The 2 low end Core 2 duo's have problem in Office XP, Nero, and many high end Audio codec's, Windows Media Encoder being 1, and when added to Mozilla benchmarks it dies compared to the Mozilla's only. The E6600 is the best choice performance per price on all the CPU's.

The mobo is a bad choice as Intel readys a new mobo for release next month and the price is the worst so wait and atleast get a new design for that price. The memory you choice may need to change with the new mobo design.

Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII is a great drive but the SATA take about 1 to 2% more CPU processing cycles than the older ATA's while at the same time not exceeding the bandwidth of the ATA100 spec.
July 25, 2006 5:10:27 PM

Quote:
Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII is a great drive but the SATA take about 1 to 2% more CPU processing cycles than the older ATA's while at the same time not exceeding the bandwidth of the ATA100 spec.


i can't agree with you there: SATAII(3Gbps ~ 300MB/s) clearly exceeds the bandwidth of the ATA100 spec. the performance may not be bandwidth limited, in which case there's no gain from the added bandwidth, but as harddrive technology improves (hopefully) there will be a need for the added BW. in general, SATA HDDs offer some other advantages as well (NCQ, convenient RAID options, slimmer cables).
July 25, 2006 6:04:02 PM

Quote:
Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII is a great drive but the SATA take about 1 to 2% more CPU processing cycles than the older ATA's while at the same time not exceeding the bandwidth of the ATA100 spec.


i can't agree with you there: SATAII(3Gbps ~ 300MB/s) clearly exceeds the bandwidth of the ATA100 spec. the performance may not be bandwidth limited, in which case there's no gain from the added bandwidth, but as harddrive technology improves (hopefully) there will be a need for the added BW. in general, SATA HDDs offer some other advantages as well (NCQ, convenient RAID options, slimmer cables).
Yes but how many HD will you have to daisy chain together to use up that bandwidth? I truly dont know of anyone daisy chaining HD's on SATA yet. Only the Iram or other Solid state drives can use that much bandwidth. Not even RAID can sustain anywhere near that bandwidth on a daisy chain setup nor could RAID max out SATAI at only 150MB/s.

Good advantages but disadvantages are higher costs of HD's as ATA's are really cheap right now, uses an extra 1 to 2% of the CPU Cycles over the ATA's, and the SATA HD's take up a SATA that would be better used for SDD. The 1 to 2% extra CPU usage is SATA's big downfall as that could slow a CPU costing $100 higher down to its cheaper slower performance counterparts level.
July 25, 2006 6:25:33 PM

Quote:
Good advantages but disadvantages are higher costs of HD's as ATA's are really cheap right now, uses an extra 1 to 2% of the CPU Cycles over the ATA's, and the SATA HD's take up a SATA that would be better used for SDD. The 1 to 2% extra CPU usage is SATA's big downfall as that could slow a CPU costing $100 higher down to its cheaper slower performance counterparts level.


The price difference between a SATA and a PATA drive of the same capacity and model, is only (at most) 15$. I would gladly pay an extra $15 for a drive with higher data throughput, NCQ, and much smaller cables.
July 25, 2006 6:49:35 PM

Quote:
Good advantages but disadvantages are higher costs of HD's as ATA's are really cheap right now, uses an extra 1 to 2% of the CPU Cycles over the ATA's, and the SATA HD's take up a SATA that would be better used for SDD. The 1 to 2% extra CPU usage is SATA's big downfall as that could slow a CPU costing $100 higher down to its cheaper slower performance counterparts level.


The price difference between a SATA and a PATA drive of the same capacity and model, is only (at most) 15$. I would gladly pay an extra $15 for a drive with higher data throughput, NCQ, and much smaller cables.

Cool i'll pay less and get better CPU performance and the truth is your not paying for a drive that has higher thoughput. Your paying higher for a HD that can be connected to many other HD's without reaching the limit of the lower ATA or SATAI max thoughput.
July 25, 2006 6:57:17 PM

The higher data throughput will benefit you more than an extra 1-2% of CPU performance.
July 25, 2006 7:02:18 PM

Quote:
The higher data throughput will benefit you more than an extra 1-2% of CPU performance.

Not if you only use 1 or 2 HD on a SATA channel as you want be using anymore throughtput than ATA offers. Late next year when the 1-2% of CPU performance falls below 1% due to much faster processors will be the time to more to SATA as it then will truly not matter.
July 25, 2006 7:28:02 PM

Quote:
extra 1 to 2% of the CPU Cycles over the ATA's


can someone link a reference for this?

also, slightly more on topic: many newer mobos are only coming out with 1 (or on occasion 2) ATA ports which means that if you have more than one optical drive (which are almost all still PATA) you'll be in a pickle for adding HDDs. On the other hand there's usually 4+ SATAs. This, along with slimmer cabling and essentially the same price, is why I am gonna go with a SATA HDD.

no one has said anything about power supplies yet, any suggestons on a <$100 PSU for the above system?

thanks again for the discussion and help.
July 25, 2006 7:32:11 PM

Quote:
extra 1 to 2% of the CPU Cycles over the ATA's


can someone link a reference for this?

also, slightly more on topic: many newer mobos are only coming out with 1 (or on occasion 2) ATA ports which means that if you have more than one optical drive (which are almost all still PATA) you'll be in a pickle for adding HDDs. On the other hand there's usually 4+ SATAs. This, along with slimmer cabling and essentially the same price, is why I am gonna go with a SATA HDD.

no one has said anything about power supplies yet, any suggestons on a <$100 PSU for the above system?

thanks again for the discussion and help.
Not really as theirs a device to let you hot swap on ATA so you could have up to 4 optical drives on 1 ATA connection but you can only use 2 at one time.
July 25, 2006 7:36:13 PM

Quote:
Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII is a great drive but the SATA take about 1 to 2% more CPU processing cycles than the older ATA's while at the same time not exceeding the bandwidth of the ATA100 spec.


I never heard of this statistic. Do you have any links to support this? I googled and didn't come up with anything. It would be a shame since I'm pretty happy with my WD SATA and I love the cables.
July 25, 2006 7:43:25 PM

Quote:
Not really as theirs a device to let you hot swap on ATA so you could have up to 4 optical drives on 1 ATA connection but you can only use 2 at one time.


that seems like you're just going out of your way and probably spending more money for less usability. i wouldn't want to have to disable my hdd just because i am copying a cd in the optical drives...
July 25, 2006 8:01:24 PM

Quote:
Not really as theirs a device to let you hot swap on ATA so you could have up to 4 optical drives on 1 ATA connection but you can only use 2 at one time.


that seems like you're just going out of your way and probably spending more money for less usability. i wouldn't want to have to disable my hdd just because i am copying a cd in the optical drives...
Truly you wouldn't want your HD and optical drives on the same PATA but most all mobo's come with 2. I wouldnt perchase a cheap mobo with just 1 PATA. My suggestion was for more than 2 optical drives only on a single PATA.
July 25, 2006 8:01:48 PM

i was recently in a similar situation as you.

my need was for photoshop speed.

my decision was to go with the asus p5w dh, and a D805. the reason? in the future i want a media server anyway. so im going to run this d805 until january. by then the conroe's should have good availability and more reasonable prices. who knows...maybe even the quad core will be out then.

at that point, i'll just take the d805, and drop it into a budget mobo, throw in a couple of 320 gig hdds, and put linux on it and im set.

the upside is that now i have a dual core system that runs Photoshop a LOT better than my 1ghz machine did, and when im ready to go with a conroe, it will be a bios flash and a $300 chip, and i will have at least doubled my cpu capability. and, i dont have to worry about conroe availability or gouging. and, the p5w dh is based on a very establish mobo architecture.

i noted that one person recommended waiting until a new mobo came out from intel. thats not a good idea in my opinion. the main reason i selected the p5w dh is that it is based on proved technology...meaning many of the bugs have already been worked out. new mobos usually have lots of bugs....and that can be quite frustrating.

thus far, this board has been rock solid.

anyway thats my 2 cents.
July 25, 2006 8:07:06 PM

Quote:
Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII is a great drive but the SATA take about 1 to 2% more CPU processing cycles than the older ATA's while at the same time not exceeding the bandwidth of the ATA100 spec.


I never heard of this statistic. Do you have any links to support this? I googled and didn't come up with anything. It would be a shame since I'm pretty happy with my WD SATA and I love the cables.
The origanal benchmarks, when SATA came out, were done on the AMD thunderbird CPU and at that time took almost 10% of the CPU cycles. Im looking for links and may take a little while to find. To be upfront their is a better choice then even ATA as SCSI reduces the CPU cycle hit even more.
July 25, 2006 9:02:03 PM

the only time ive ever seen my cpu hit 100% is with my old single core 1ghz, and that was when i was importing some video from a DV. at that point, the 1-10% (supposed) performance hit from the sata would have come into play.

however, i just imported some video on my machine over the weekend, and my cpu never went over 60%. so...if my sata harddrives were taking an extra 5% of my cpu cycles...who cares? i was still able to do other stuff without any problem at all. most of the time cpu's are underutilized anyway.

if all you ever run are cpu intensive apps...then maybe it would make sense to stay with pata. but personally i love my sata's. very convenient, and flexible.
July 25, 2006 9:15:27 PM

In reply to your PSU question.

I went with a Fortron (FSP) 500 watt.

3 reasons.

1. the asus motherboard instruction book listed the 400 watt version of that PSU as 'recommended'. (download the pdf at the asus website for other recommendations)

2. research i did on FSP showed that they regularly were held in high regard.

3. i figured i could get by with 400 quality watts...but the price difference was only about 15 bucks...so...i went ahead and went with the 500.

i think i spent $80...maybe a little less.
July 25, 2006 9:59:45 PM

Quote:
the only time ive ever seen my cpu hit 100% is with my old single core 1ghz, and that was when i was importing some video from a DV. at that point, the 1-10% (supposed) performance hit from the sata would have come into play.

however, i just imported some video on my machine over the weekend, and my cpu never went over 60%. so...if my sata harddrives were taking an extra 5% of my cpu cycles...who cares? i was still able to do other stuff without any problem at all. most of the time cpu's are underutilized anyway.

if all you ever run are cpu intensive apps...then maybe it would make sense to stay with pata. but personally i love my sata's. very convenient, and flexible.


Ok I found the SATA, PATA, CPU utilization information and the information has changed as CPU performance has reduced the percent you see here.
Quote:
The most interesting thing here is the very low CPU utilization of the parallel ATA drive. Most of the SATA drives demonstrate CPU usage numbers in excess of 11%. Only the Seagate drive drops below 10%. This may simply be due to the relative immaturity of the current implementation of SATA in the Intel 865 chipset, but it is interesting to note that the only native SATA drive – the Seagate – offers lower CPU utilization than the other drives.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1329772,00.a...

landlocked32371 sorry about posting this as a reply on your post as your opinion is fine. Your just the last to reply to my post.

In look this information up I did however learn that Nvidia's new chipsets while doing RAID does reduce CPU utilization to about PATA as PATA RAIDS require more CPU utilization.
July 25, 2006 10:08:21 PM

Quote:
Truly you would want your HD and optical drives on the same PATA but most all mobo's come with 2. I wouldnt perchase a cheap mobo with just 1 PATA.


New boards (not specificly cheap ones as you implied) have 1 PATA channel because it's being phased out. It's not because they are cheap.
July 25, 2006 10:12:54 PM

Quote:
Truly you would want your HD and optical drives on the same PATA but most all mobo's come with 2. I wouldnt perchase a cheap mobo with just 1 PATA.


New boards (not specificly cheap ones as you implied) have 1 PATA channel because it's being phased out. It's not because they are cheap.
True but optical drive are moving to SATA leaving the 1 empty and the cheap mobos will be the first to see the PATA go down to 1. Most any you buy right now should have 2 and I would try to get 2 as they give greater options.
July 25, 2006 10:29:04 PM

Conroe > Athlon X2 > Pentium D

Conroe pwns all.
July 25, 2006 10:33:14 PM

Quote:
True but optical drive are moving to SATA leaving the 1 empty and the cheap mobos will be the first to see the PATA go down to 1. Most any you buy right now should have 2 and I would try to get 2 as they give greater options.


As of right now, there are currently 2 optical drives which use the SATA interface. Both are from Plextor.

No, cheap boards will not be the first to see the number of PATA ports go down to 1. A perfect example, the Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6, a $280 USD board, with only 1 PATA port.

They don't give greater options either.... SATA is the way hard drive manufacturer's are going. Motherboard manufacturer's recognized this, and have begun adding more and more SATA ports to their products, and at the same time, reducing the number of PATA ports to get rid of large bulky cables in a time when airflow has a significant role in the stability of the computer. Bulky cables block airflow and as a result, the components stay warmer.

More heat means less stability, shorter lifespan, and ultimately more money out of consumers wallets to replace those products. Going back to the extra $15 figure I mentioned earlier, I would also gladly pay an extra $15 to use a drive with a smaller cable which allows for better airflow in my case, therefore extending the life of ALL of the parts inside my system.
July 25, 2006 11:01:24 PM

Quote:
True but optical drive are moving to SATA leaving the 1 empty and the cheap mobos will be the first to see the PATA go down to 1. Most any you buy right now should have 2 and I would try to get 2 as they give greater options.


As of right now, there are currently 2 optical drives which use the SATA interface. Both are from Plextor.

No, cheap boards will not be the first to see the number of PATA ports go down to 1. A perfect example, the Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6, a $280 USD board, with only 1 PATA port.

They don't give greater options either.... SATA is the way hard drive manufacturer's are going. Motherboard manufacturer's recognized this, and have begun adding more and more SATA ports to their products, and at the same time, reducing the number of PATA ports to get rid of large bulky cables in a time when airflow has a significant role in the stability of the computer. Bulky cables block airflow and as a result, the components stay warmer.

More heat means less stability, shorter lifespan, and ultimately more money out of consumers wallets to replace those products. Going back to the extra $15 figure I mentioned earlier, I would also gladly pay an extra $15 to use a drive with a smaller cable which allows for better airflow in my case, therefore extending the life of ALL of the parts inside my system.
Having PATA is better than no PATA and it increase the number of drive you can have so yes they give more options. 5 Year after SATA comes out thats where hard drive are headed? AT this rate SATA's going to be replaced before it wipes out ATA. The thing to replace SATA is already comming and its on PCIX Solid State Drives. Microsoft has a notebook using only SDD comming they showed at one of the tech shows.

SATA lowering of heat has never been proven and, if you can, show me a link proving lower heat please. I mean test and benchmark of heat change not just sales pitch.
July 26, 2006 12:19:35 AM

Quote:
Having PATA is better than no PATA and it increase the number of drive you can have so yes they give more options. 5 Year after SATA comes out thats where hard drive are headed? AT this rate SATA's going to be replaced before it wipes out ATA. The thing to replace SATA is already comming and its on PCIX Solid State Drives. Microsoft has a notebook using only SDD comming they showed at one of the tech shows.


I'm not arguing that having no PATA ports is a good thing. I for one would like all boards to have at least one, until all PATA drives have been phased out. Yes, SATA will be replaced everntually, possibly by solid state drives, possibly by some other means. However, until that happens, SATA drives are the way to go. Higher throughput, smaller cables, and overall better drives. To my knowledge, there has not been a test conducted to see just how much of a temperature drop there is between a SATA drive and a Parallel drive, and even if I am wrong and there is no drop, the cable management is still much easier with a SATA drive, than with a parallel drive.
July 26, 2006 12:30:14 AM

Quote:
Having PATA is better than no PATA and it increase the number of drive you can have so yes they give more options. 5 Year after SATA comes out thats where hard drive are headed? AT this rate SATA's going to be replaced before it wipes out ATA. The thing to replace SATA is already comming and its on PCIX Solid State Drives. Microsoft has a notebook using only SDD comming they showed at one of the tech shows.


I'm not arguing that having no PATA ports is a good thing. I for one would like all boards to have at least one, until all PATA drives have been phased out. Yes, SATA will be replaced everntually, possibly by solid state drives, possibly by some other means. However, until that happens, SATA drives are the way to go. Higher throughput, smaller cables, and overall better drives. To my knowledge, there has not been a test conducted to see just how much of a temperature drop there is between a SATA drive and a Parallel drive, and even if I am wrong and there is no drop, the cable management is still much easier with a SATA drive, than with a parallel drive.
Ok now that I'll agree with and as for the heat issue I kind had you over a table. The SATA can move more information and, as moving electric over copper will create more heat, the fact SATA can move 2 or 3 times the information will atleast make the same amount of heat. In the case of Iram it could and most likly is more heat were the extra bandwidth is used.
July 26, 2006 2:03:49 AM

Quote:
The SATA can move more information and, as moving electric over copper will create more heat, the fact SATA can move 2 or 3 times the information will atleast make the same amount of heat


so what you're saying is i should invest in water-cooled cables? as a physicist, i can not agree that heat due to "moving electric"(sic) will scale linearly with throughput. this is highly dependent on voltage levels, wire thickness, and other factors independent of frequency. yes, higher bandwidth tends to be worse for heat (we see that in processors and memory all the time) but comparing billions of transistors with a copper wire is just silly since there are much bigger effects here than data transfer rate. (not to mention that PATA has more wires than SATA to produce this immense heat).

as for airflow, i agree, slimmer cables would probably be better but that's a minor difference IMO.

could we get back onto the original topic, please?
July 26, 2006 3:31:23 PM

Quote:
The SATA can move more information and, as moving electric over copper will create more heat, the fact SATA can move 2 or 3 times the information will atleast make the same amount of heat


so what you're saying is i should invest in water-cooled cables? as a physicist, i can not agree that heat due to "moving electric"(sic) will scale linearly with throughput. this is highly dependent on voltage levels, wire thickness, and other factors independent of frequency. yes, higher bandwidth tends to be worse for heat (we see that in processors and memory all the time) but comparing billions of transistors with a copper wire is just silly since there are much bigger effects here than data transfer rate. (not to mention that PATA has more wires than SATA to produce this immense heat).

as for airflow, i agree, slimmer cables would probably be better but that's a minor difference IMO.

could we get back onto the original topic, please?
No, as any physicist should know, water conducts electricity but the more wires PATA has are under used which may help it stay cooler and the PATA connector is spreadout so it will loss heat faster. In PATA v/s SATA your comparing not transistors to copper wire, as your example has no point, but copper wire of the PATA v/s copper wire of the SATA. As your a physicist, you should know wire being closer togetter as in SATA will insulate and keep the SATA wire from lossing heat as quick.

As a computer expert I can tell you ever other wire in PATA is highly under used, but require, and thus spreads the heat creating wires further apart. The only true advantage SATA has over PATA is daisy chaining more than 2 drive and without daisy chaining more than 2 HD's you'll be a long time ever needing the extra bandwidth. The only exception is SSD but SATA doesn't have enough bandwidth for those so they will quickly have to has a new connection or a PCIX slot.
July 26, 2006 4:21:46 PM

Quote:
As a computer expert I can tell you ever other wire in PATA is highly under used, but require, and thus spreads the heat creating wires further apart.


*Every* wire in your computer is underused... if it was overused, it wouldn't be safe. There's a world of difference between data rates and currents, don't forget that. Data wires don't generate heat. End of discussion.
July 26, 2006 4:43:25 PM

Quote:
As a computer expert I can tell you ever other wire in PATA is highly under used, but require, and thus spreads the heat creating wires further apart.


*Every* wire in your computer is underused... if it was overused, it wouldn't be safe. There's a world of difference between data rates and currents, don't forget that. Data wires don't generate heat. End of discussion.

Data wires don't generate heat is funny. Almost every wire in a computer is data wires from the nano sized CPU nan gates, the mobo connectors, and the device ribbons. The only way of getting away with little or no heat is using superconductive materials or fiber optic line instead of copper.

I guess you never heard of normally used wires. No, every other wire in PATA is under used and thats part of how SATA can send the same information on half the wires.
July 26, 2006 5:07:41 PM

as much as i hate continuing this retarded conversation, your ignorance doesn't let me stop: nand gates in your cpu are not wires... they are transistors and it's the switching of the transistors that heats them. additionally, there's billions of them in a very small space so the currents are high compared to the physical size of the conductor. neither of this is the case for copper wires in your data wires, which carry low CURRENTS compared to what they could carry safely (AWG current ratings). the FREQUENCY of the signals is what affects the data rates (as well as how the transfer protocol is designed). high CURRENTS in wires = heat, frequency has a much smaller effect (several orders of magnitude smaller).

Quote:
No, every other wire in PATA is under used and thats part of how SATA can send the same information on half the wires.


no SATA needs less wires because it's a serial protocol, same reason RS232 needs less wires than Parallel.

*ignores Elbert's nonesense from now on*
July 26, 2006 5:16:19 PM

Quote:
Data wires don't generate heat is funny. Almost every wire in a computer is data wires from the nano sized CPU nan gates, the mobo connectors, and the device ribbons. The only way of getting away with little or no heat is using superconductive materials or fiber optic line instead of copper.
I guess you never heared of normally used wires. No, every other wire in PATA is under used and thats part of how SATA can send the same information on half the wires.


All wires that pass current have resistance and thus create heat. Why don't we care about data cable power issues?
PATA is a parallel interface. Many relatively slow but syncornized signals passing over multiple lanes.
SATA is a serial interface. One very fast lane of sequenced data.
Both carry low current relative to their capacity. That's why we don't care. Power cables are a different story though...
July 26, 2006 5:26:22 PM

Quote:
as much as i hate continuing this retarded conversation, your ignorance doesn't let me stop: nand gates in your cpu are not wires... they are transistors and it's the switching of the transistors that heats them. additionally, there's billions of them in a very small space so the currents are high compared to the physical size of the conductor. neither of this is the case for copper wires in your data wires, which carry low CURRENTS compared to what they could carry safely (AWG current ratings). the FREQUENCY of the signals is what affects the data rates (as well as how the transfer protocol is designed). high CURRENTS in wires = heat, frequency has a much smaller effect (several orders of magnitude smaller).

No, every other wire in PATA is under used and thats part of how SATA can send the same information on half the wires.


no SATA needs less wires because it's a serial protocol, same reason RS232 needs less wires than Parallel.

*ignores Elbert's nonesense from now on*
Yes the serial protocol reduces the need for the extra wire due to interrupts and ground wire, mainly the under used wires. Serial has to send about the same data but SATA's upper limit on bandwidth is 2 or over 3 times that of PATA data so it can product more heat.

Current in wires equal heat but the major difference in PC's are at the chip level not at the cable HD level. Maybe your ignorance doesn't have all the facts.

True CPU's are not wires but they do move electric just as wire do. Is moving electric no part of the definition on wires? :D 
July 26, 2006 5:35:36 PM

Quote:
Data wires don't generate heat is funny. Almost every wire in a computer is data wires from the nano sized CPU nan gates, the mobo connectors, and the device ribbons. The only way of getting away with little or no heat is using superconductive materials or fiber optic line instead of copper.
I guess you never heared of normally used wires. No, every other wire in PATA is under used and thats part of how SATA can send the same information on half the wires.


All wires that pass current have resistance and thus create heat. Why don't we care about data cable power issues?
PATA is a parallel interface. Many relatively slow but syncornized signals passing over multiple lanes.
SATA is a serial interface. One very fast lane of sequenced data.
Both carry low current relative to their capacity. That's why we don't care. Power cables are a different story though...
Yes thats total true but they stated SATA produces less heat which has not be proven.
July 26, 2006 5:37:16 PM

Quote:
...Even the Pentium 4 506 for $50, or the Celeron D 352/356 for $60-$70 are okay buys if you don't heavily use multithreaded apps. :wink:


Never thought I'd see this posted. Via chipsets anyone???
July 26, 2006 6:38:00 PM

Quote:
...Even the Pentium 4 506 for $50, or the Celeron D 352/356 for $60-$70 are okay buys if you don't heavily use multithreaded apps. :wink:


Never thought I'd see this posted. Via chipsets anyone???
Thats odd, the P4 cheaper than Celerons, but I guess time changes everything.
July 26, 2006 7:12:25 PM

Quote:
Yes thats total true but they stated SATA produces less heat which has not be proven.


I don't believe anyone said SATA produces less heat. based on the specs, the drives themselves produce less heat, because they use less power (approximately 5W less than PATA drives, +- 2W depending on the drive).

Quote:
Serial has to send about the same data but SATA's upper limit on bandwidth is 2 or over 3 times that of PATA data so it can product more heat.


So what? The upper limit of the data throughput of a SATA device is higher..... that fact alone does not, by any means, indicate that the SATA cables get hotter. It depends on how much voltage is going through those wires.

My entire argument is around the fact that SATA data cables are smaller compared to their PATA counterparts, and how this smaller cable affects the collective airflow inside the computer case.
July 26, 2006 7:36:22 PM

Quote:
Yes thats total true but they stated SATA produces less heat which has not be proven.


I don't believe anyone said SATA produces less heat. based on the specs, the drives themselves produce less heat, because they use less power (approximately 5W less than PATA drives, +- 2W depending on the drive).

Quote:
Serial has to send about the same data but SATA's upper limit on bandwidth is 2 or over 3 times that of PATA data so it can product more heat.


So what? The upper limit of the data throughput of a SATA device is higher..... that fact alone does not, by any means, indicate that the SATA cables get hotter. It depends on how much voltage is going through those wires.

My entire argument is around the fact that SATA data cables are smaller compared to their PATA counterparts, and how this smaller cable affects the collective airflow inside the computer case.

Quote:
More heat means less stability, shorter lifespan, and ultimately more money out of consumers wallets to replace those products. Going back to the extra $15 figure I mentioned earlier, I would also gladly pay an extra $15 to use a drive with a smaller cable which allows for better airflow in my case, therefore extending the life of ALL of the parts inside my system.

No your correct as you were stating PATA cables produced or cause more heat. You are correct as to the drive themselves but any newly designed PATA drive could do the same. Your correct as the voltage would matter but 3 times the data would mean atleast less voltage would be needed for SATA. The problems with this is PATA cables are as long as they can be made at their current voltage as I guess SATA are. Give the 3 times the data possible its near impossible that even half the voltage would make it up.

Its never been proven the PATA cables restrict airflow over that of SATA. If you were to place the PATA cable over a fan or vent then yes it would but who would do that. The airflow agument is a marketing pitch and if true why have they never proved this.
July 26, 2006 8:23:27 PM

Quote:
"It depends on how much voltage is going through those wires."

Nope. Only current matters, (although in this case neither matters).
!