Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SATA-150 x SATA-300

Last response: in Storage
Share
January 10, 2007 7:55:28 PM

Hey .. i have some questions...

- SATA-300 have too bigger performance then SATA-150 ?!?!
- The old MB that supports SATA-150 .. supports SATA-300 ?? i don´t see any specifications, talkin about SATA II, just SATA support hehehe

More about : sata 150 sata 300

January 10, 2007 8:08:01 PM

- SATA-300 have too bigger performance then SATA-150 ?!?!
roughly the same performance

- The old MB that supports SATA-150 .. supports SATA-300 ?? i don´t see any specifications, talkin about SATA II, just SATA support hehehe
yes. there is a jumper on the new sata300 drives that allow them to work in motherboards that only support sata150
January 10, 2007 8:31:45 PM

Can somebody give me a chart with reviews about SATAI vs SATA II? I never read one hehe
Related resources
January 10, 2007 8:33:06 PM

Quote:
- SATA-300 have too bigger performance then SATA-150 ?!?!
roughly the same performance

- The old MB that supports SATA-150 .. supports SATA-300 ?? i don´t see any specifications, talkin about SATA II, just SATA support hehehe
yes. there is a jumper on the new sata300 drives that allow them to work in motherboards that only support sata150


when i set the jumper to work in MB that only support sata 150 .. the performace still the same ?
January 10, 2007 8:41:20 PM

perfomance will be reduced to SATA-150
January 10, 2007 8:41:39 PM

There is no such thing as a "SATA II" device or controller. There are SATA II extensions to the SATA 1.0 specification but they are piece-meal, not a whole set of functionality. Ussually when a marketer says "SATA II" they mean 3gbit (300mbps data throughput) w/ NCQ, but you shouldn't listen to marketers as the term has no defined meaning when applied to a device.

There is no Jumper on any 3g sata devices that I know of. One of the main goals of the SATA spec was to get rid of jumpers.

Spec compliant sata devices and controllers are backwards compatible for speed. A 3gbit Controller will easily support 1.5 or 3g devices in any combination. A 3ghz SATA drive should have no problem running at 1.5ghz. The OOB in response to COMWAKE/COMINIT which happens when you turn the device/controller on or plug it in communicates the speed at which the devices wants to run. If a 3g device/controller sees a 1.5g OOB it should step down to 1.5g, complete OOB, speed negotiation, and insert the port. A lot of SATA drives are not spec compliant, but I've tested a couple 3g drives on 1.5g FC-SATA bridge chips and they complete OOB and speed negotiation without problem.

AFAIK there are no drives currently that can sustain data transfer in excess of the 150mbps theoretical max throughput of a 1.5g SATA phy, so there isn't much performance increase using a 3g SATA drive instead of 1.5g.

You should be able to use a 3g SATA drives on your old mobo (but, of course, they will only run at 1.5g) and 1.5g drives on a new mobo. You should be able to not worry about it at all and just plug-and-play ;) 
January 10, 2007 8:48:28 PM

Quote:
Can somebody give me a chart with reviews about SATAI vs SATA II? I never read one hehe

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html

As I said, there is no such thing as "SATA II" but you can see the difference speed and NCQ make there.
January 10, 2007 8:51:36 PM

I guess since you are responding to me, you want me to answer???
Quote:
There is no such thing as a "SATA II" device or controller.

I never said sataI or sataII the OP did. I responded correctly with sata150 and sata300.

Quote:
There is no Jumper on any 3g sata devices that I know of. One of the main goals of the SATA spec was to get rid of jumpers.

some manufacturers payed attention to the spec, some didnt. see WD for jumpers. others do not have the jumper and followed spec.
January 10, 2007 8:53:44 PM

who really gives a crap, people understand what you mean anyways and it doesnt really matter SATA II or SATA 300 or SATA 3Gb's...
January 10, 2007 8:57:55 PM

I got a jumper on my WD3200KS which is SATA 3.0 compliant. On the top cover it says "jumpered pins 5 and 6 enable SATA 150 only operation" or smth. like that
January 10, 2007 9:02:59 PM

another question .. teh memory cache
more cache means more performace ?

and really thx for the explanation u guys, especcialy flasher and sandmanwn :) 
January 10, 2007 9:41:59 PM

Quote:
There is no Jumper on any 3g sata devices that I know of. One of the main goals of the SATA spec was to get rid of jumpers.

My 160GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 SATA-II HD has a jumper for SATA-I compatibility.
January 10, 2007 10:02:44 PM

Quote:
another question .. teh memory cache
more cache means more performace ?

yes, the more cache the better.
January 10, 2007 10:05:04 PM

Quote:

who really gives a crap, people understand what you mean anyways and it doesnt really matter SATA II or SATA 300 or SATA 3Gb's...

There are plenty of 3g SATA drives without NCQ and 1.5g SATA drives with NCQ and marketers make up terms and toss them around and it's very confusing. Best not to use them at all.

If you want to talk about performance you don't use marketing mumbo-jumbo terms to do it. When I'm working with a drive I need to know what speed it supports and if it has NCQ, not if some marketer thought they would sell more drives if they put "sata II" on the label. The SATAIO has released statements to this effect as well.

http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp
"Important do not use SATA II to represent 3Gb/s"
"The 3Gb/s capability is just one of many defined by the former SATA II committee..."

@sandman
I must have just hit the nearest reply button, sorry. ;)  Specifying the throughput capabilities, which are synonymous with the line speeds, is far more accurate than refering to them as "SATA II", thank you.

Does anyone know if the 3g WD drives with a jumper setting for 1.5g fail to step down to 1.5g if you don't set the jumper? I'll see if I can find one to try it sometime, but I have a lot of other tests to do first and all I'm finding right now are 36g raptors (which also have jumpers on them but don't do 3g).
January 10, 2007 10:13:54 PM

nesso, check out the performance charts I linked above. That will give you a much better indication of which drive is faster then looking at the specs. Only thing specwise you really need to worry about is NCQ (you want it) other than that look at the performance charts to see if a drive really is faster and don't worry so much about cache or interface speed. As you look at the charts you'll see some drives with 8mb cache beating drives with 16mb cache in many tests. More cache is always better, but there are many factors that affect HD performance.
January 10, 2007 10:59:27 PM

Does NCQ really impact hard drive perfomance?
January 10, 2007 11:34:02 PM

Quote:
Does NCQ really impact hard drive perfomance?


If you have lots of little files then yes, it does nothing for large sequential unfragmented files though. Since most people open programs that consist of lots of little files and/or fragmented files then NCQ will make a fairly decent to VERY large difference, but your mileage may vary.
January 10, 2007 11:41:27 PM

Didnt know that detail. I learned something new now :D  thx

Hopefully all the SATA drives that I have on my rig have NCQ :p 
January 11, 2007 12:26:55 AM

Quote:
Does NCQ really impact hard drive perfomance?


Quote from Wikipedia

Native Command Queuing (NCQ) is a technology designed to increase performance of SATA hard disks by allowing the individual hard disk to internally optimize the order in which received read and write commands are executed. This can reduce the amount of unnecessary going back-and-forth on the drive's heads, resulting in increased performance (and slightly decreased wear of the drive) for workloads where multiple simultaneous read/write requests are outstanding, most often occurring in server-type applications. However, the current technology actually slows down HD access in certain applications, like games and sequential reads, because of the added latency induced by NCQ logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Command_Queuing
January 11, 2007 3:45:47 PM

If you're doing sequential accesses I'm not sure if NCQ even does anything and thusly I'm not sure if it adds any extra latency at all. If it did at all I would assume that the extra latency would be significantly less than 1ms per request and would vary from one drive to the next. I see a few places that talk about NCQ slowing down "single user" tests (http://www.storagereview.com turns NCQ off for single user benchmarks), but they don't say by how much. My "desktop" is almost always operating as a server due to multi-tasking and p2p, but this is an interesting point to bring up especially for the OP who doesn't plan on doing much multi-tasking. I think it's important to quantify it though.

Perhaps the concern is about response time. With NCQ on with a drives that supports a queue depth of 32 it could potentially take 32times as long to get a response back for the first request (but IOPS would be higher overall and average response time would be faster).

An interesting test would be to run a battery of benchmarks on an NCQ drive, then turn NCQ off and re-run the tests on the same drive and see if there are any of them where performance increases when NCQ is off. I'm trying to dig up some kind of example where real-world performance is negatively impacted by NCQ, if you find something please let me know. Theoretically, for a single, sequential access request from a single-threaded application (1 thread, 1 user, 1 request, no NCQ optimization possible), NCQ couldn't possibly improve performance, so any time devoted to NCQ logic will slow it down. But by how much and what application would actually create such a situation? Loading levels or textures for a game or launching applications (assuming files are not fragmented) would create sequential read-requests from a single-threaded application with one user... but it would be several read commands at once and NCQ could then re-order them to save a few ms per request even though each individual request was sequential, right?
January 14, 2007 8:12:55 AM

Quote:
Hey .. i have some questions...

- SATA-300 have too bigger performance then SATA-150 ?!?!
- The old MB that supports SATA-150 .. supports SATA-300 ?? i don´t see any specifications, talkin about SATA II, just SATA support hehehe
The main impact will be on "burst speed". I have a Seagate 7200.10 320GB SATA3g on an ASUS P4C800E-Deluxe(only SATA150).

HD Tach 3.01:

Burst Speed: 134.1MB/s out of a possible 150MB/s
Average Read Speed: 69.4MB/s
Random Access Time: 13.3ms
CPU Utilization: 3%

Those are pretty impressive scores, and beat a 74GB Raptor in some instances. I've looked around the net, and most people with this drive, in SATA3g mode, get similar or slower results, with the exception of "burst speed"....they get ~240-250MB/s. :wink:
!